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: 18
1
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2006 @ 06:56 AM
link   
and that whole cam shutter speed crap is bull..




posted on May, 17 2006 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
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:


of curse you are not sure if you dont check it like i did it.

i tell you 2 things:
1) the videos are from the gov..
2) you see somethig on it and this determine the size of the object.

A fast flying object flying through a camera with a large shutter time would case a darkened strip of the size of the object.
That's all needed. It's too small.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 07:01 AM
link   
why cant people just accept the fact that our minds are being messed with here!!


(mod edit of profanity in post)
please see ats terms and conditions


1b.) Profanity: You will not use profanity in our forums, and will neither post with language or content that is obscene, sexually oriented, or sexually suggestive nor link to sites that contain such content.


[edit on 17-5-2006 by pantha]



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 07:08 AM
link   
"The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists." - J. Edgar Hoover, Former FBI director



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 07:16 AM
link   


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.


Bingo. People really need to consider this fact. Any object moving past the camera at such speed would be nigh on impossible to make out, hence the fact that a plane really isn't obvious in the video.

The video is completely and utterly inconclusive in disproving the fact that a 757 hit the building.

There are claims that people are 'brainwashed' and willing to believe anything the government tells them. I believe many people here have brainwashed themselves into believing what they WANT to believe, despite evidence to the contrary. Conspiracy theories are all well and good, but jesus, how about opening your eyes to all the evidence avaialable and coming to an informed, intelligent conclusion?

I believe that the events of S11 were more than likely orchestrated by powers driven by a greater and hidden agenda, but I also believe a 757 did hit the Pentagon.

[edit on 17-5-2006 by solidstate]



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 07:18 AM
link   

My, my, and after posting up facts, complete with pictures, how fast the belief systems are challenged, thus offended and the denial responses quickly followed.....

After providing the links given, conclusively, there was no cruise missile, there was no Global Hawk, and there was no smaller than a 757 aircraft, period. Furthermore, the Pentagon security camera's were crap in that their shutter rate was way too slow to adequately capture an aircraft moving at 500+ mph. Hell, a 7-11 probably has better security cameras, but anyhow....


Originally posted by enoc777
"The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists." - J. Edgar Hoover, Former FBI director

Got one better for you:
"Exceptional claims require exceptional proof."--Carl Sagan


And good solid point(s), solidstate.

Let's continue to see how fast the denials keep rolling in....






seekerof

[edit on 17-5-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by theluketheory
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?



Land it in a military base. Put it in a hanger. Or use a hologram.


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

    How do you knock over lamposts without a plane?



Use small explosive charges and around 100 NWO actors to pretend they were in a traffic jam outside the Pentagon who were witnesses.


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

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



There was no plane. It was a hologram!

Now your questions have been answered, do you believe it wasn't a plane?


[edit on 17-5-2006 by Clipper]



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 08:01 AM
link   
I still have a hard time believing that a plane of that size can travel that fast that close to the ground (parallel to the ground) and hit the pentagon perfectly without overshooting the side a little or smacking the ground. The film shows the plane was already very close to the ground entering the frame from the right, so it must have been traveling parallell and didn't come in at an angle when impacting the pentagon. I'm not familar with the area around the pentagon, but can a plane of that size get down to that altitude and not hit anything in the process? I would think that it would take a great deal of real estate to position a plane of that size that close to the ground...also a top-knotch pilot...not someone freshly trained from pilot school.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by rockieboy
I still have a hard time believing that a plane of that size can travel that fast that close to the ground (parallel to the ground) and hit the pentagon perfectly without overshooting the side a little or smacking the ground.

Overshooting the side? What does that mean? The Pentagon is HUGE, there's nothign to overshoot.
And the video does show it hitting the ground first.


The film shows the plane was already very close to the ground entering the frame from the right, so it must have been traveling parallell and didn't come in at an angle when impacting the pentagon.

There's no way you can tell all that from the video.


I'm not familar with the area around the pentagon, but can a plane of that size get down to that altitude and not hit anything in the process?

If you come in at certain angles it's possible.
The plane did hit a few light posts btw




I would think that it would take a great deal of real estate to position a plane of that size that close to the ground...also a top-knotch pilot...not someone freshly trained from pilot school.

lol, this argument is absolutely hillarious. When you don't care, and you're on a suicide mission....it doesn't take a skilled pilot to crash a plane. Do you honestly think they cared if they hit the ground first before slamming into the Pentagon?



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Had yet another look just now, The tail the smoke trail etc.

This has already been established by several technicians that the proportions of a 757 do not match up when you overlay it on the frame that shows the tail section.

It just doesn´t fit, because the nose should have been in the frame sticking out from behind the post, simple as that.

For reasons of difficulty of execution, a drone or jet would be very unlikely.

A cruise missile can be directed exactly where you want it.

Hey, you´re all partially right it was a Boeing.
It was just an AGM-86C, also built by Boeing and probably fired from a C-130.




From www.boeing.com...

Would a C-130 be able to fire this? Most likely yes.

To answer the questions on why a Cruise Missle and not a 757:

1) You cannot control a 757 at that speed. Overshoot 100 yards, and Cheney is toast. The horizontal angle of attack is scientifically impossible for a 757.
2) Even when you do hit the right spot with a 757, you cannot be sure 100% what the damage will be, and to what extent
3) A cruise missile is deadly accurate
4) Damage made by a cruise missle is well known

About the witnesses:

The original 757 is landed, and switched by another plane carrying the cruise missile (with the same transponder signal, very easy to do)

Passengers
The passengers are huddled into a hanger -for their own safety-
The passengers are disposed of (choose your poison).
DNA samples are gathered and sent to the friendly lab to secure the chain of evidence.
The 757 is destroyed, and some small parts are dispatched to Arlington to plant at the scene

Ghost (C-130) carrying AGM-86C or similar
Takes transponder code from 757
Immediate takeoff once the 757 has landed
Makes its erratic flight
Just when it is below radar it fires the cruise missile, maybe even as close as 1 mile out. It stays below radar and swiftly disappears. This would make sense if the carrier had been a C-130, as numerous witnesses have testified seeing a C-130 type plane (from description) leave the scene.

It can later simply pop back up and no flight controller would be the wiser after the C-130 switched its transponder back to an original setting while below radar.

Witnesses
A few key witnesses are with intell, the rest can be created easily.

Aircraft parts or lack thereof
Planting parts is simple, especially if the first ones on the scene are intell, even before the attack took place. This particular section was under renovation remember? How hard would it be to plant some parts just before the attack?

Collateral damage to posts etc.
Basic special effects, nothing new to the CIA.

Remember the box covered with a blue tarp?
What if it had AGM-86 remains in it?

EDIT: Here is a flash presentation which tries to put it all together

Put it all together, and this is a sweet little plan. Too bad about that impossible captured frame though, that will expose this whole deal in the end.

[edit on 17-5-2006 by HardToGet]



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 08:44 AM
link   
ThatsJustWeird...I meant top...not side. My mistake. The pentagon is about 5-6 stories high right. That's still one hellova shot to hit the building w/o over/under shooting your target at that speed. Even with the video of the plane hitting the twin towers, you can see the plane tilt to the side when the pilot readjusted the plane before impact. This pilot had it perfect...not too high...not too low...and the correct left/right tilt of the plane..anything other than this "money shot" would have left more debris.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 08:49 AM
link   
Do you think there is a better quality video or atleast better resolution, surely the camera wouldn't record tiny like that, it'd be 800x600 or something monitor sized?



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 09:14 AM
link   
I'm a little late to this game but I just saw this article from AP on Yahoo... news.yahoo.com...

Which linked to the official videos here... www.defenselink.mil...

I'm my not so profesional opinion (I used to be a crew chief on KC-10's), it looks to me like there should be a HUGE trench from the fence line all the way to the pentigon given the height of the aircraft in those videos, especially the second one.

I've seen all sorts of landings from all sorts of pilots, but I've never seen a glide slope get that close to the ground and still maintain enough altitude to travel the distance it appeared to travel without touching the ground. I've seen figher jets do stuff like that, but never a big jet.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 09:15 AM
link   
I still can't see how this is the best the gov't could do in showing us proof. I spoke with a WWII vet last night, and he was furious, because he knew there should be better cameras than that. He is a 9/11 true believer in the official story, but like he said, the gov't did nothing to bolster their claim to those who had doubts, and the fact that this was used in the trial of Z. Mass. is ludicrous. He is not a net saavy person, but he asked me if I would put his opinion out there on this.

I don't think we can get any real conclusions on this. I will never believe this is the best they have either. This stinks. I am pretty much buying the excuse of shutter speed, but I still have my doubts. There were other cameras, I'd hope that they really worked and that they weren't just put there for appearance's sake.

Hell, I live in New Orleans, and we have better police cameras on telephone poles! These buggers lived through K, too!



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by rockieboy
ThatsJustWeird...I meant top...not side. My mistake. The pentagon is about 5-6 stories high right. That's still one hellova shot to hit the building w/o over/under shooting your target at that speed. Even with the video of the plane hitting the twin towers, you can see the plane tilt to the side when the pilot readjusted the plane before impact. This pilot had it perfect...not too high...not too low...and the correct left/right tilt of the plane..anything other than this "money shot" would have left more debris.

What? The plane hitting the building obviously wasn't perfect or a money shot, if you were going to slam into a building like that you definately wouldn't be that low. From any angle, at that speed you'll be lucky to get any significant amount of debris from a crash like that.


Do you think there is a better quality video or atleast better resolution, surely the camera wouldn't record tiny like that, it'd be 800x600 or something monitor sized?

These cameras aren't regular building security cameras. They're built specifically just to look at the cars (they have them at just about all government buildings here in DC and the DC area). These types of cameras certainly weren't designed to look that far out (where the plane crashed) that's why you're not going see the plane in good quality from those cameras.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
After providing the links given, conclusively, there was no cruise missile, there was no Global Hawk, and there was no smaller than a 757 aircraft, period.


Keep the point focused:

ALL what is to do IS to prove the Gov theorie wrong that it was an 757!

And I did a step to that connecting to the two videos, proveing where the aircraft has to be in the one old video based on it's synchronous work. You can follow and check this out for yourself or ignore it. That's free to you.

But please don't distract with some links that conclusive proof nothing.

The size is the next step. So if you want to contibute prove that a 757 fits in that frame.



Originally posted by Seekerof
Furthermore, the Pentagon security camera's were crap in that their shutter rate was way too slow to adequately capture an aircraft moving at 500+ mph. Hell, a 7-11 probably has better security cameras, but anyhow....


Already gave you the answer to this. It doesnt change anything about my 'investigation'. You cant hide the plane size also in a slow shutting camera not.

(And really the camera is not shutting that slow like you think when you check the explosion and the debries thrown into the air. 500mps is also not such a hell of a speed when the view is wide. )

You give a very strange and missleading argument here because it is not relevant how 'adequate' the picture looks like for the size of the object.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
The airplane was completely disintegrated after it hit the concrete wall at about 500 miles per hour. Furthermore, there is very little doubt that the airliner's throttles were firewalled. The security camera only took a picture every half second. You could see the beginning of the nose of the airplane on the right in one of the video stills, and then the explosion right afterward.


Long time reader, first time poster. The comments by this gentleman forced me to register and delurk as I strongly believe he is spreading disinformation.

The video security systems at government facilities do not take the low resolution pictures that were released. They do not take pictures every half (or more like one second as displayed in the clip) that this very amateurish video shows. Government buildings utilize a very high resolution digital video system that captures 30 frames per second. What we see in the "released" video is not from the system in use by government facilities, that is for certain. The images are not crisp and the capture rate is too low. Add in the location of the cameras is also suspect. This video may convince those already believe the cover story, or those who know nothing about the systems in use, but they are more damning than they are supportive of government claims IMO.

These pictures are about the quality you see from a cheap X10 camera system, not the ultra high resolution equipment in use around federal buildings. The Pentagon is supposed to be one fo the most secure buildings on the planet, so I highly doubt that they best they can provide is an out of focus, 1 fps, video from two poorly placed cameras. I have to question where the video is from the other dozen cameras that would be covering that side of the building? The government has to do a better job than this.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 09:55 AM
link   
Flight77.info says there are 80+ video clips of the Pentagon attack and they expect to recieve them all including the CITGO gas station one and I assume Pentagon security CCTV.

Those in the no-757 camp should be careful as this could be a strawman setup to throw the 9/11 truth movement into disarray. My advice is to wait until Flight77.info get all the CCTV they asked for.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 10:02 AM
link   
go to 1.26 in this video.
pserver.mii.instacontent.net...

OMFG look far right centre, i see a nose of a rocket, could that be the nose of a plane?????

Far right in the middle...let me know...



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Let me know guys i was shocked when i saw this.
didnt think that by goin through frame by frame i would see anything but you do!!!!



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join