Sweaty Betty
Hemo rising!
Jesus this grew quick....
Alas this is way over my head now, but it was fun while it lasted.
Byeeeeeeeeeeee
Alas this is way over my head now, but it was fun while it lasted.
Byeeeeeeeeeeee
New camera footage of Pentagon impact released!
- Thread starter Jazzz
- Start date
- Status
For those having difficulty spotting the plane, I have outlined flight77
here's what a 757 looks like to scale
here's what a 757 looks like to scale
I was wondering what was different about these - you are right one of the cameras was the same as the stills we had ages ago - but the difference is they were cropped at the side. We can now see a lot more of the object.mauvais said:
editor
hiraethified
You've been rumbled and it's gone beyond a joke.Jazzz said:Oh not again, you making me out to be 'deceitful' when I have been nothing of the sort
But seeing as you've introduced her comments (albeit requoted in a highly selective manner) you have no reason to doubt O'Brien's professional opinion that the Pentagon was hit by Flight 77, yes?
mauvais said:"Why OH WHY did we use the invisible plane?!"
Perhaps because they had trust in the ability of the human mind to make up excuses to fit rather then to question the 'accepted' truth.
Remember that phrase from earlier on, as Jazz said, the evidence is a bit skant, there is absolutely NO evidence of a plane hitting that building AT ALL from those images.
Yet you are all incredibly quick to explain that away.
You don't ask for more proof, you don't question the 'accepted' story.
Instead you make up excuses.
And then you ask silly questions like, why did they release those pictures then?
Well clearly a lot of you are living proof of exactly why they released those pictures, because you are willing to convince yourself of anything at all.
I am not even a 9/11 conspiracy type person, I don't really know what happened, and I am more then willing to believe the official line on what happened until proof comes along to disprove that story.
I will not however make up excuses to fill in the gaps.
There is no plane in those pictures, there are untold cameras around the Pentagon and SURELY one of them would have shown what happened from an angle that would actually show the image of a plane flying into the building.
editor said:
Don't be ridiculous ed. We've had this before. This was what I said "When the object came in controllers had no idea it was flight77" and the interview linked to backs that up. That was the day after 9/11. Probably before anyone got the chance to stop them talking.
How dare you keep accusing me of being 'deceitful' for no good reason.
If O'Brien still believes it was flight77 (we all did on 10th September 2001) it's in spite of the blips she witnessed.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
Jazzz said:
I'm gonna regret this, but...
what are you saying happened to flight 77 again?
and why would whoever's behind this here conspiracy arrange to hijack flight 77, then somehow make it disapear never to be seen again, just so they could fly something else into the pentagon? what exactly would be the point in complicating things?
makes no fucking sense to me mate, surely it'd make more sense to just hijack a plane and fly that plane into the pentagon... after all it didn't really matter that much exactly what flew into the pentagon did it, just that something hit it and made lots of smoke for the tv cameras.
can't believe you're still barking up this particular tree after all these years, I really think you need to step back for a bit and consider the fact that while all of what you are saying is possible, it really makes no sense for it to have been done that way. Even if this entire thing was a US government covert op, your theory still makes no sense.
please don't come back with these arguements...
the plane made too tight a turn for that type of plane / pilot skill level.... ok so the turn was tighter than is normal in that type of plane, but it's not impossible, just amnormally tight, and lets face it these weren't normal circumstances. It's entirely possible that the reason for this tight turn was because the pilot had fucked up his initial run at the pentagon, overshot and had to make a stupidly tight turn to stand any chance of hitting the target. It's also possible that the guy for whatever reason was specifically targeting that particular wall, and had done the manouver deliberately... either way there's no way this tight turn proves anything about it not being flight 77.
the plane not showing up as flight 77 on radar... well obviously it wouldn't if they'd turned the transponder etc. off, it would just show up as an unidentified blip on the screens. This in no way proves it wasn't flight 77, what the radar operators testimony does show though is that it was definately a plane and not a missile.
actually I'm a bit confused Jazz, at one point in this thread you're pointing at the testimony of air traffic controllers stating that they were tracking a plane that made a tight turn before hitting the pentagon (I accept that they didn't know at the time this was flight 77), then you state that...
well ok so you can't see flight 77, but you also can't see any other plane either... what exactly was it that you are now saying caused that massive explosion and hole in the pentagon wall? because it can't have been a missile because the air traffic control were tracking a plane, and if it wasn't the plane they were tracking that hit the pentagon where did this plane go? or did it switch on it's cloaking device? If it was a plane that hit then why are you so sure this plane wasn't flight 77? and why would anyone bother faking flight 77 flying into the pentagon by replacing it with another plane flying into the pentagon? did they just decide to complicate things for the fun of it? as if a plot to hijack 4 planes and fly them into multiple buildings across the us wasn't complicated enough...
ah fuck it what's the use? for what it's worth Jazz I'm pretty sure there was a conspiracy around 911, but by continuing to persue bollocks theories like this one you're actually fucking up any chance for proper discussion about what really happened. sort it out please mate
These are exactly the kinds of questions that the 9/11 conspiracy folks never have answers for. Much easier to focus on some "scientific" aspect. The "why would they do it this way" & "what happened to the real flight" questions are never answered. The one I keep posing that's never answered is "Why would they stage 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq & not make any of the hijackers Iraqis?"free spirit said:
Andy the Don
Wise men say only fools..
Azrael23 said:
Yes the same Bin Ladens who are investors in the private equity group the Carlyle Group. Together with Bush sr, John Major, George Robertson. This has never been disputed. But Bin Laden sr had something like 58 children of which Osama was one. Bin Laden sr construction firm also built US military installations in Saudi Arabia. So what.. It is no international conspiracy, because if it is it is a shit one if it is splashed over the financial press after press releases from the Carlyle Groups financial PR company.
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
I do find it remarkable that the only Pentagon footage, one of the USA's most important buildings with some of its highest brass in, is from just one security camera which isn't actually trained purposefully on the building itself but instead at the guard post where cars come in. Additionally its a camera with a very poor fps ratio.
I bet if you walk down your local high street you'd have more cameras trained on you. But still, maybe the Pentagon isn't that highly guarded these days.........
I bet if you walk down your local high street you'd have more cameras trained on you. But still, maybe the Pentagon isn't that highly guarded these days.........
mauvais
on reddit or something
This, from two cameras, makes it easier to see what bits are actually the plane:
Now besides being completely useless in any normal sense, you can see that the object's roughly the right size. A 757 fuselage is no more than 20ft high, the Pentagon 77ft, so... well... right isn't it?
Now besides being completely useless in any normal sense, you can see that the object's roughly the right size. A 757 fuselage is no more than 20ft high, the Pentagon 77ft, so... well... right isn't it?
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
*applause for Mauvais and free spirit*
Fong said:
I was going to reach the end of the thread before commenting, but these words fit my sentiments very well.
No plane, yet folk accept that this is proof there was a plane!!!!! Fuck me, the very people who rant on about conspiracy theorists and their intransigence in their ideas are more culpable of this than their targets of ridicule.
It's too unbelievable for words: no plane in the video, and that is proof there was a plane!! Fucking hell.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Car park CCTV cameras are never going to show complete footage because that is not how they work. They act rather like the domestic camera: snapping quick shots and if you've ever seen CCTV footage of an incident in one of Britain's town centres you will see this for yourself.
If the USG were complicit in the 911 attacks, one of the very reasons they knew they could get away with it is all this 'conpsiracy theory' nonsense. The whole lexicon means that members of the public align themselves on one side of the argument and just battle each other.
Leaving culprits to get away with it.
I find it amazing that the USG release a video they claim will shut the 'conspiracy theorists' up, yet there is no sight of any plane.
I find it amazing they do this more than four years after the event.
I find it amazing how contorted folk will get into believing what they want to believe. And i don't mean the so-called 'conspiracy theorists'.
I find it amazing how eager folk are to accept the USG version of events over 911. It's even more amazing when the same folk know full well their prediliction for lies and spin and bullshit.
I find it amazing how these folk will not ask some basic questions about the given version of events. Instead, they simply want to ignore such questions by attacking those that ask them.
Incidentally, this video release takes us into new territory regarding what passes off as proof. Fucking hilarious.
Leaving culprits to get away with it.
I find it amazing that the USG release a video they claim will shut the 'conspiracy theorists' up, yet there is no sight of any plane.
I find it amazing they do this more than four years after the event.
I find it amazing how contorted folk will get into believing what they want to believe. And i don't mean the so-called 'conspiracy theorists'.
I find it amazing how eager folk are to accept the USG version of events over 911. It's even more amazing when the same folk know full well their prediliction for lies and spin and bullshit.
I find it amazing how these folk will not ask some basic questions about the given version of events. Instead, they simply want to ignore such questions by attacking those that ask them.
Incidentally, this video release takes us into new territory regarding what passes off as proof. Fucking hilarious.
nino_savatte said:
Well, if their intention in releasing this video footage in particular wasn't to just initiate debates such as this very one on urban, then they'd've released all the other footage from the other cameras.
But they didn't. Why not? Why just this one that doesn't even show a plane, yet people now accept that this is proof a plane hit the pentagon?
Some clever people are never going to be made responsible due to their innate understanding of human nature.
What the mind does not want to comprehend, it will block out. Easy. Job well done, rub the hands.
editor
hiraethified
Err, how about because:fela fan said:
(a) the Pentagon car park cameras weren't installed to grab high speed action shots of planes hurtling towards the building at high speed
(b) the cameras - being of a lowly CCTV two frames a minute kind - didn't capture the nano-second that the plane went hurtling by their field of vision.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Fela, if you'd bothered reading why this was released you'd know that this was a specific request under the US Freedom Of Information Act, requesting that footage from this camera be released into the public domain.
The other point as well is why bother with all this 'Plane didn't hit the Pentagon' business - focus on finding evidence for an actual conspiracy in the USG, with actual paper-trail evidence (which is how Watergate bought down Nixon) as opposed to grainy, low frame rate footage showing something that we know happened.
It's drivel like 'What plane?' and all the other 'theories' posit...focus on the actual conspiracy...as I've said repeatedly on the subject of the 'demolition' of the towers for example.
You talk about how this means 'they' can rub their hands...well hasn't it occured that stirring up the conspiracy crew who have been claiming everything from remote controlled planes to cruise missiles being used (which would have caused FAR more damage than a flimsy aluminium tube hitting the building would) actually makes it easier to divide and rule?
The other point as well is why bother with all this 'Plane didn't hit the Pentagon' business - focus on finding evidence for an actual conspiracy in the USG, with actual paper-trail evidence (which is how Watergate bought down Nixon) as opposed to grainy, low frame rate footage showing something that we know happened.
It's drivel like 'What plane?' and all the other 'theories' posit...focus on the actual conspiracy...as I've said repeatedly on the subject of the 'demolition' of the towers for example.
You talk about how this means 'they' can rub their hands...well hasn't it occured that stirring up the conspiracy crew who have been claiming everything from remote controlled planes to cruise missiles being used (which would have caused FAR more damage than a flimsy aluminium tube hitting the building would) actually makes it easier to divide and rule?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
