New camera footage of Pentagon impact released!

[fela fan]

Err, how about because:

(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.

Not good enough, try again.

There were other cameras, other footage

This video was released to prove to all of us that a plane hit the pentagon. Yet there is no plane in the footage. If they wanted to show us a plane hit the pentagon, why give us cctv footage without a fucking plane in it??

Is that not even a micro-atom strange to you??

Put very simply indeed, this video has been released to spawn discussions just like this one here on urban. I ask you, WHERE'S THE FUCKING PLANE?

 

[Blagsta]

What the mind does not want to comprehend, it will block out.

But of course, the mighty FELA FAN understands all. Not like us mere mortals eh?

 

[fela fan]

That's a rather big if...

Well, in my head, it's not even an 'if'. Just making a vague effort at being objective.

 

[editor]

This video was released to prove to all of us that a plane hit the pentagon. Yet there is no plane in the footage. If they wanted to show us a plane hit the pentagon, why give us cctv footage without a fucking plane in it??

Still waiting for your government source for that quote.

 

[spring-peeper]

Got a government source for that quote, please?

He is quoted me from a post where I was commenting on the eleven o'clock news. S/he can't link because I can't either.

The comment made me think of Jazzz, so I mentioned it.

 

[Blagsta]

Well, in my head, it's not even an 'if'. Just making a vague effort at being objective.

Yes of course, because only the mighty FELA FAN knows the truth.

 

[fela fan]

But of course, the might FELA FAN understands all. Not like us mere mortals eh?

There's plenty more who understand blagsta, not just myself, but obviously not including yourself, who's far more interested in dissing people with the wrong opinions on things, rather than wanting to find out more.

You cover yourself in self-delusion i'd say. But naturally i could be well wrong. Who cares.

 

[kyser_soze]

Not good enough, try again.

There were other cameras, other footage

This video was released to prove to all of us that a plane hit the pentagon. Yet there is no plane in the footage. If they wanted to show us a plane hit the pentagon, why give us cctv footage without a fucking plane in it??

Is that not even a micro-atom strange to you??

Put very simply indeed, this video has been released to spawn discussions just like this one here on urban. I ask you, WHERE'S THE FUCKING PLANE?

The video, as I say above, was released in respsonse to an FOI request by
'Judicial Watch', not the Pentagon releasing it for any of your reasons...

But lets not let what has happened get in the way eh, fela?

 

[Blagsta]

There's plenty more who understand blagsta, not just myself, but obviously not including yourself, who's far more interested in dissing people with the wrong opinions on things, rather than wanting to find out more.

You cover yourself in self-delusion i'd say. But naturally i could be well wrong. Who cares.

you're an arrogant wanker aren't you?

 

[nino_savatte]

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.

1. I have pointed out how CCTV cameras work; they are not like ordinary video cameras, if they were they would be too expensive to run and would use a lot of tape/disks etc to store the images.

2. The plane was travelling at a speed in excess of 400 mph, which is too fact for the camera to capture the full impact.

 

[43mhz]

This 'video' clip has been floating around the internet for ages.. how is it 'new' ?

 

[Blagsta]

I don't think it's outside the realms of possibility that the USG let 9/11 happen or that factions in the CIA acted as agent provacateurs and encouraged the attacks. But to claim that there was no plane or that the WTC was brought down by controlled demolition is just insane. It's not that hard to fly a plane into a building, not that hard I'd have thought to encourage angry religous fundies to commit atrocities. So why do the conspiraloons need to go to ridiculous lengths to come up with absurd conspiracy theories? I don't get it.

 

[nino_savatte]

I don't think it's outside the realms of possibility that the USG let 9/11 happen or that factions in the CIA acted as agent provacateurs and encouraged the attacks. But to claim that there was no plane or that the WTC was brought down by controlled demolition is just insane. It's not that hard to fly a plane into a building, not that hard I'd have thought to encourage angry religous fundies to commit atrocities. So why do the conspiraloons need to go to ridiculous lengths to come up with absurd conspiracy theories? I don't get it.

Er, to cover up all the holes in their previous conspiracy theories?

 

[El Jugador]

Talking of cover ups, there is actually another Pentagon conspiracy being reported today, but which has nothing to do with this bullshit camera footage issue, however the thread discussing it was instantly locked thanks to you lot piling in with your "me too me too" pisstaking, so I may as well add this here instead:

Thursday, 17 March, 2005, 15:41 GMT

Secret US plans for Iraq's oil
By Greg Palast Reporting for Newsnight

The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks, sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big Oil, BBC's Newsnight has revealed...

Newsnight website
link to BBC story
link to the locked thread

I am willing to bet that yesterday's release of the Pentagon turnstile camera footage was a deliberate ploy to deflect attention away from the real Pentagon conspiracy mentioned in the quote above.

And it totally worked too!

 

[FridgeMagnet]

*ahem*

check date

 

[nino_savatte]

Talking of cover ups, there is actually another Pentagon conspiracy being reported today, but which has nothing to do with this bullshit camera footage issue, however the thread discussing it was instantly locked thanks to you lot piling in with your "me too me too" pisstaking, so I may as well add this here instead:

Newsnight website
link to BBC story

I am willing to bet that yesterday's release of the Pentagon turnstile camera footage was a deliberate ploy to deflect attention away from the real Pentagon conspiracy mentioned in the quote above.

And it totally worked too!

I think you're right: the timing of this event couldn't have been better.

 

[El Jugador]

*ahem*

check date

Oh poo - you're right - my bad for seeing 17th in the date

 

[kyser_soze]

Quite interesting stuff there...esp the comments from the Shell dude...

 

[TAE]

The video, as I say above, was released in respsonse to an FOI request by
'Judicial Watch', not the Pentagon releasing it for any of your reasons...

But lets not let what has happened get in the way eh, fela?

Well ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4987716.stm
The release of the video, taken from a Pentagon security camera, comes after a Freedom of Information Act request by legal watchdog Judicial Watch.

The group said it hoped to dispel conspiracy theories about the crash.

And I still can't see a plane in that footage so I really don't know why the Judicial Watch bothered - especially as we've got plenty of footage of planes hitting the twin towers.

 

[WouldBe]

here's what a 757 looks like to scale

Sorry but that's complete bollocks as usual.

The height of a 757 is 44ft
The height of the pentagon is 77ft

This 'scale' image is way too big and it's heading for the wrong part of the pentagon i.e. not where the aircraft actually struck.

 

[axon]

Semi-affiliated....thats a good one I like it...I think its in my conspiracy theory dictionary.

Yes, as in Al Qaeda are not a nation state or a regular army. Is this difficult for you to understand?

The Bin Laden whose father Salem, provided the capital for George W Bushs first oil company Arbusto right?

Yes, AFAIK. A man with the surname as Osama who has dissociated himself with his son has business contacts to Bush. Do you think everyone with the name bin Laden should be rounded up? And I thought Osama didn't have anything to do with 911, I thought it was the government?

Let us also not forget who created Al-CIAda in the first place...oh I gave it away. Documented historical fact.

Are you deliberately being thick? Yes, the CIA funded Al Qaeda during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Do you know why, it was becuase they had a common enemy. Are you aware that Britain and France once had a war, and then in another war they were allies!!! But this couldn;t of possibly occurred in your one-dimensional world.

Pakistan are so very friendly with Al-Qaeda though, I`m sure there was a good reason the chief of pakistani intelligence met the money man on the morning of 9/11.

No he didn't.

Errrr I think you`ll find renovation on that wing was completed the morning of 9/11 and yes it had been reinforced against "blasts".

No it wasn't. And unless you actually give us some idea of why you think this then the answer will always remain "No it wasn't".

You seem to think that your statements should be regarded as the ultimate truth, you may have had more chance with this approach if you haven't been time and time again demonstrated to be either making stuff up or believing stuff other conspiraloons ahve been making up.

 

[editor]

The video, as I say above, was released in respsonse to an FOI request by
'Judicial Watch', not the Pentagon releasing it for any of your reasons...

But lets not let what has happened get in the way eh, fela?

Exactly.
But hey! Why let a complete lack of research - or, indeed, the actual facts - get in the way of a good story eh, fela?!

 

[editor]

Sorry but that's complete bollocks as usual.

The height of a 757 is 44ft
The height of the pentagon is 77ft

This 'scale' image is way too big and it's heading for the wrong part of the pentagon i.e. not where the aircraft actually struck.

Bah! If it wasn't for you interfering 'factual' types he could have got away with his fantasy version!

 

[fela fan]

you're an arrogant wanker aren't you?

I can be anything you want me to be blagsta. So yes, if that's what you think, that's what i am.

Funny innit.

Let me play the game. You've got a fragile ego.

There. Am i right? Are you right? You're a tosser. Am i right? Am i wrong?

 

[fela fan]

1. I have pointed out how CCTV cameras work; they are not like ordinary video cameras, if they were they would be too expensive to run and would use a lot of tape/disks etc to store the images.

2. The plane was travelling at a speed in excess of 400 mph, which is too fact for the camera to capture the full impact.

So why don't the USG release the footage from the other cameras?

Instead we get this one.

I know what you're saying nino, but i'm wondering why we've been given the footage from a camera that cannot show the plane.

 

[WouldBe]

So why don't the USG release the footage from the other cameras?

Funnily enough they are all CCTV cameras as well. There isn't a requirement for high speed cameras to watch over petrol station forecourts.

 

[Blagsta]

I can be anything you want me to be blagsta. So yes, if that's what you think, that's what i am.

Funny innit.

Let me play the game. You've got a fragile ego.

There. Am i right? Are you right? You're a tosser. Am i right? Am i wrong?

Been smoking yaba again?

 

[fela fan]

Exactly.
But hey! Why let a complete lack of research - or, indeed, the actual facts - get in the way of a good story eh, fela?!

You do the maths editor.

A group of people tell us we ought to see this video of a plane smashing into the pentagon in order to silence the 'conspiracy theorists'.

Yet this video doesn't have a plane in it. How does that add up to you then????

This could only silence those die-hards that are desperate to hang onto the USG version of events.

 

[mauvais]

So why don't the USG release the footage from the other cameras?

Instead we get this one.

Two.

 

[Crispy]

Why then, if they could pull off this massive conspiracy, did they not fake this video to show a plane? The quality is so low, even I could do it.