It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Flight77.info - Pentagon video release imminent?

page: 17
1
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2006 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by DIABOLIC888
NO plane ever hit the Pentagon.....it was a cruise missle, or other military jet aircraft or something small, it hit the Pentagon @ 500mph.....I mean people come on, it doesn't take a lot to figure out, THE CHANGE is coming............


Then I challenge you to provide a reason as to WHY they would have used a cruise missile, a military jet, or some other small aircraft and not an actual jumbo jet as was used on the WTC? It's easy to jump on the 'not a plane' bandwagon, but provide some intelligent response as to WHY it was not a plane.

As far as staging a mock attack, why would they expose themselves to being 'found out'?




posted on May, 17 2006 @ 02:43 AM
link   
well i sure dont see a jumbo jet there lol


SMR

posted on May, 17 2006 @ 02:55 AM
link   
Why use anything other than a real 757?
Too much debris? To hard to actually pull it off? Dont want to cause too much damage to the country's military defence headquarters?
There are many reason NOT to use an actual 757
We were all told AA flight 77 Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon.We have yet to actually even see a PLANE in the old or new video.We were told we were to see this atcual footage used in court of a 757 hitting the Pentagon.
To actually THINK they used that crap video to help put away that Zacarias Moussaoui is actually bogus.To think they told that jury 'THERE IT IS' makes me laugh.I really hope they didnt take that video seriously."See that little dot there, THATS THE PLANE!" "You know you see it!"


Today, or yesterday actually, they released more junk and nothing more.
We will probably never see any other footage and thats really too bad.As I have said before.The longer they hold out, the more skeptic we will be because in time, new advancement in video technology will only make us speculate if it has been used to deceive.IMO, they have already started that with this video.Few more years down the line and a run on over to ILM, they could show us the whole day like a movie and it will seem like it is all real and in real time.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 03:20 AM
link   
So can anyone identify what it is?

For some reason that "thing" whatever is we see for only one frame on both videos are slighty different in shape:








What is it?



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 03:49 AM
link   
DUH!

Just watched the CNN video again.(9/11 Pentagon crash video 3:03)

pic 1) Timepoint 0.07 shows the object from camera 1
pic 2) Timepoint 1:50 shows the object from camera 2

According to that other video on CNN: (9/11 Pentagon video released 2:21);

pic 1 what looks like a smoke trace shows the fuseledge of the so called plane and 2 shows the nose although stranges intesectioned in 2 bodies.

but the camera 1 and 2 run synchronised (identical explosion clouds in the frames)
and pic1) and pic2) shows therefore the same timepoint.

clearly to see at timepoint 0.08 the next frame of camera1 that pic1 showes a smoke trace. The so called 'body' in pic1 is not to identify as a body (and hells ure not as an 757 body) but would fit perfect as smoke cloud. So if this is the smoke trace where is the object?

And NOW I got that the object we see in pic2) second camera and it is even smaller then I ever thought. IT is the front 'object' of the so called (intesected) nose! Yes that little bit. And the hugh rest of that 'nose' IS the smoke trace.
Rmember pic1 and pic 2 shows the same time point! They both contain the body and the smoke. and not one the body one the nose. The only thing that was irritating was the color of the so called 'nose'. The smoke trace like we see in pic1) is rather white. But not so on pic2. But the camera2 view in the cnn video (only in the cnn one) was improved. There was another pic of that same camera posted here and there it was white!

So pic2 according to my understanding does not show a nose (as stated eariler I know no such nose of any aircraftt and the impact angle can also not explain this) but a small object with smoke trace which direction is fitting.

in Pic2 the small object is really just behind the yellow metall box.

So there is no boeing 757, just a really small object with a smoke trail.

A Missile would very well fit to that.
But honestly the smoke trail (still visible on impact 0:08 so it is there!) I have still problems with. Wouldnt such a cruse missile hit the target without leaving a smoke trace? Same with a really small plane..so what kind of smokeing missile could this be. (Note: it has to thrust all the way in and not just at start)

funny their videos rather proof the missile theorie than anything else.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 03:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by eudaimonia
So can anyone identify what it is?

For some reason that "thing" whatever is we see for only one frame on both videos are slighty different in shape:








What is it?


ah yes I speak exctly of this two pics.
both show the same timepoint! so thats both time asmall object with a smoke trace.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 04:14 AM
link   
Yes, I had seen the same video on ABC a couple of times, and to me, it shows nothing. Nothing that in itself proves anything one way or the other.

However, what it seems to show me, at least, is that they (the Pentagon, et al) look guiltier now than ever before.

I had never heard of that website referred to earlier in the post, but what the Pentagon seemed to be trying to make clear, was the fact that they were showing the video in order to finally put a stop to all the "Conspiracy Theories" out there surrounding the government's involvement in 9-11.

Well, if they are truly only theories, and there is no conspiracy, then why in the world would they even care what the people are saying about it. If it were a real attack on our country by unknown and unforseen "terrorists", then one would think that they would have much more important things to be worrying about than whether people are speculating and theorizing.

IMO, that suggests more guilt than anything.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 04:35 AM
link   
I have a question about the pentagon plane...we all see on the video and the know trayectory that the planet it it horizontally, i dont know if on that trayectory of the plane there were any big luminaries around it close.....because if it were close then surely the plane would have hit some of them with their wings (the plane is big not a small thing that can cross if it was horizontally)...and if we believe that the planet hit it at around 500mph any luminaries that could stuck the plane before impacting the pentagone surely would broke the wings before the impact seekrof said that on that velocity everything would be pulverized, so if there were luminares before the pentagon on that same trayectory then surely it would have hit a lot and at that velocity if they hit the wings the wings would surely come off because like he said this is the part of the plane less dense and more fragile they would surely broke off before even impacting the pentagon....

How much lengh did the plane went horizontally before hithing the pentagon?..500 mts?..for a plane like that shold be at least 600 mts(my assumption here)...on that position to hit were it supouse hit, it didnt come from above..or from one side or the other, the gov story is that it went straight horizontally.. so at least it would have flight very low many meters before hiting...and if they were big luminares on that trayectory surely it would have hit the plane before hithing the pentagon itself and that would like i said if they hit the wings would sure rip them off before the strike on the pentagon because it was at 500mph or more...

Just my assunption here but maybe someone know more about this..



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by solidstate
I certainly think there is far more to September 11 than meets the eye, but I do believe it was a jumbo jet that hit the Pentagon.


How on earth do you think a "jumbo jet" aka Boeing 747 hit the Pentagon? The candidates are a Boeing 757, Global Hawk, Missile or some other small military jet.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 05:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tommio
Just have a look a what a cruise missile looks like when it hits a building, look familiar to anyone?

video 1

Also some cruise missiles can look very similar to planes,

video 2

[edit on 16-5-2006 by Tommio]


You could certainly believe that was a plane if you were in that traffic jam at the Pentagon. You wouldn't even need psyops, or maybe just a few. Witnesses are unreliable anyway. They say what they thought they saw and people see what they expect to see. In any event you get different versions of the same event. I believe most people would think that was a plane and then they just invent details without even knowing. The brain automatically fills in the gaps.


CX

posted on May, 17 2006 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nightmare0

Originally posted by CX
Whats this on the new video?

On the new video here on CNN, could someone explain to me what this object is when the clip gets to 1min 9secs? As you look at the video, theres a traffic cone on the left with a box slightly to its right in the foreground. Look just between these two nearer the Pentagon and theres what looks like a white/silver post of some kind. At 1min 9secs on the clip, this post suddenly shoots up in the air, or should i say extends. The only way i can desribe it is as if there was a chopped off lamp post, then it suddenly shoots up or extends to it's original height again. Either that or it looks like a fire water hydrant going off as if a car has crashed into it, only nothing has touched it. Probably nothing, i just could'nt make out what it was.

By the way, am i the only one to think that the plane on that footage looks very small indeed?

Anyway, click the link below then click the Pentagon footage link onb the news site.

www.cnn.com...

CX.



could be a gate opening as the car goes past does look strange though


Ah yeah, did'nt think of that one, thanks for that.


CX.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 05:58 AM
link   
I'd believe it wasn't a plane if someone could answer me these 3 things:

    How do you hide a plane and all the passengers?
    How do you knock over lamposts without a plane?
    And why wouldn't a plane crash into the pentagon?




posted on May, 17 2006 @ 06:01 AM
link   
OK people, so we're not going to decide whether it was a plane or a missile or something else that hit the pentagon. Everyone has interpreted that video in there own way. Although i do feel some may be being influenced by media coverage of this.

But shouldnt we be asking why has this video been released aswell. Not what does this video show. Anyone who can think for them selves will say that the video shows something which hits the pentagon which doesnt look like a plane. Or if it is a plane it is impossible to make it out. So why would the US government release this? To boost GW's rating? he currently tied for the lowest popularity rating of any president in history (check CNN). Support for the war in iraq is falling, people are losing sight of why they went to war in the first place. This video brings back all the emotion of 9/11 and just reminds people of the day and the so called war on terrorism.

Or maybe its to keep the consiparcy theorist occupied while the government sets of in some other direction. If you want to start a war with another country you dont want people snooping to find out do you. Could it be to discredit conspiracy theorists? Show people a video and say their seeing a plane hit a building on national news and most people are gona believe that/just accept that thats what there being shown.

Anyway just another line of thought we could look at,



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 06:01 AM
link   
WOW! Close to a completly 757 theorie debunk
--------------------------------------------------------

I am completly right the two pics (frames of the cameras) are taken at the exact same time point .

Check the two videos on frame by frame:
www.judicialwatch.org...

Check how the police care travels to both view frame by frame.
You will detect the front camera is on the right yellow metall box!

make sure you see how the two cameras are exactly synchron working, when the care passes through the entire field of view. You will also notice the strong view distortion.
You can also verify that they are working exactly time synchron with the explosion coulds later.

There is one frame in video1 where the police car's front window is just visible on the right where the 'plane' will appear later.

You will see that this is the same frame in video 2 where the fornt window is just hidden from right metall box.

Exactly the same situation you have later when the 'plane' enters the camera views.

When the 'nose' thing appears in the new video it is exactly behind the yellow box on the other camera or the old long known video or frames.


So if this is the 'nose' of the object then the white smoking thing or tail seen in the old video has to show the 'body' of the plane!

YES. That is proven here!!

Now you have to map this white smoking 'body' somehow to a 757.
Impossible!!

Now you can only speculate how much of the white smoke trail is indeed the body and how much is a smoke trail. Fact is the object must be SMALLER or EQUAL that white trail seen in the original video.

I really can not think of how a 757 with wings and everything should have space in this white trail.

But we should prove: Does the 757 has somehow place in that white trail, given that smoke is on a certain distance.?

We only need to check this last thing and is the answer is NO the whole 757 theorie is broken down in peaces and debunked.

slap this on the face of the gov.


[edit on 17-5-2006 by g210]



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 06:06 AM
link   


I'd believe it wasn't a plane if someone could answer me these 3 things:

How do you hide a plane and all the passengers?


the plane dissapeared for over eight minutes from radar, surely thats enough time to swap a plane over and dispose of some passengers?



How do you knock over lamposts without a plane?


How would you knock over a lampost? A cruise missile is just as capable of hitting lampost. but do you think it is possible to fly a plane at about 5 metres above the ground for a sustained period of time by someone who has little or no flying experience?



And why wouldn't a plane crash into the pentagon?




It could have been a plane, it just doesnt appear to be a 757. If you wanted to fly a plane into the pentagon without causing too much damage, but enough to make a statement,surly you'd want someone who could pilot some sort of vehicle accuratly? A missile can be flown remotely as can most planes. even 757s

[edit on 17-5-2006 by Tommio]

[edit on 17-5-2006 by Tommio]



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 06:09 AM
link   
to g210:

I had a look at thnis before, and i dont believe the vids are actually time synced, One is slightly ahead of the other. This was one of my original lines of enquiry but if you look at the explosions they are slightl;y more formed on one than the other at any one point.

[edit on 17-5-2006 by Tommio]



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tommio
to g210:

I had a look at thnis before, and i dont believe the vids are actually time synced, One is slightly ahead of the other.
[edit on 17-5-2006 by Tommio]


They are exactly time synch. Mabye not to the last millisecond but synch enough that it is safe to say they are.

But you may proof me wrong: show me a frame that is not synchronised.

edit to add:
but mind that you the camera direction and view is not the exactly same


[edit on 17-5-2006 by g210]



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 06:44 AM
link   
ndms.chepinc.org...

Sorry if this has been posted before - this is a presentation overview of the process they used to identify the bodies at the Pentagon. It claims of 183 unique body specimens, 178 were identified and 5 were deteremined to be DNA from the terrorists.

How can a plane that vaporizes so completely as to leave only questionable physical materials also allow for enough of the remains left to be conclusively proven through DNA evidence to support the governments theory?

It would also be quite interesting for someone to use the list of confirmed deceased in this report and cross reference that with some investigative journalism and find out how many of those passengers on Flight 77 worked for the government or had jobs that would make sense to have working in an undisclosed facility program. My pet theory is that the passengers, if the names are accurate, were disembarked and sent to work on a project, their deaths faked, and a predator drone or similiar hits the least populated side of the Pentagon where the workers are sacrificed but the good old boys are safe. Hey, I'm a kook, I post at ATS, what do you expect?

The post below mine with the Moussaoui trial exhibits is fascinating, thanks Seekerof.

[edit on 17-5-2006 by Violent]



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by g210
WOW! Close to a completly 757 theorie debunk
--------------------------------------------------------

We only need to check this last thing and is the answer is NO the whole 757 theorie is broken down in peaces and debunked.

slap this on the face of the gov.

*Scratches head*
Not sure how you have deduced such, but you are sadly and quite mistaken if you think that you or anyone else has remotely come close to "debunking" anything?

You folks continue to use video images to make your case, all the while continuing to ignore that the plane can hardly be made out, if at all, because of two factors: the plane is moving at 500+ mph and the Pentagon security cameras and their shutter/frame rates--thus, concluding here that the you cannot see the plane, except for a bit of a whitish blur, because it's going way too fast and the Pentagon camera(s) shutter rate is way too slow.

Of interest to some of you may be these below links?
Pentagon & Boeing 757 Engine Investigation

Civil Engineering Magazine: The Pentagon Report

Moussaoui trial exhibits and documents
**WARNING** the above link contains body parts from the Pentagon wreckage.
Further, the above link contains 350+ separate evidences/items/objects.

Hardly a "debunking" there, g210.

But what IS "debunked" is the conspiracy notion of a cruise missile, global hawk, or smaller than 757 aircraft.....








seekerof

[edit on 17-5-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 06:56 AM
link   
you cant prove it was a 757 either..



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join