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: 19
1
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2006 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Check out this screenshot I took from the newly released video. That white object in the right side of the screen does not look like a 757 at all, and it actually looks like the object is heading sharply downwards and that it should hit the lawn hard.
mywebpages.comcast.net...




posted on May, 17 2006 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Someone tell me they it too, 1.26 on that video posted above...



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 10:10 AM
link   
i didnt see at first what u saw, then i was running through the video frame by frame and YES theres something there, no plane to me.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by uknumpty
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.

Thats what I'm thinking, they purposely don't show much and everyone says its a cover up, then they release the other videos showing the 757.

Its their way of trying to discredit the whole conspiracy.

My theory is that it was flight 77, but it was taken over by remote control with an experienced pilot flying it because there was no way the arabs could have done those manoeuvres.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 10:24 AM
link   
Can a cruise missile damage street lamp posts?

The street lamps are about the only thing that doesn't fit with that theory.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 10:27 AM
link   
pserver.mii.instacontent.net...

1.26 far right in the middle.....................



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 10:29 AM
link   
I again have to make my previous comparison to religious beliefs here:

We have the 'atheists' with their belief that there absolutely, positively was no 757 that crashed into the pentagon (God doesn't exist).

We have the 'devout' with their belief that there absolutely, positively was a 757 that crashed into the pentagon (God does exist).

Both are using some of the same evidence to prove their respective points, both find the other group to be stupid, naive, blinded or brainwashed - thus explaining why they can't grasp "the truth".

I have to consider myself an 'agnostic' in this debate (impossible to know whether there is a God or not). I have seen a lot of good points brought up by both sides, but neither has convinced me that it's possible to prove either point of view.

Let's keep all this good input going, but avoid starting a holy war, OK?



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 10:33 AM
link   
Forget the arguement, what about this.

pserver.mii.instacontent.net...

1.26 pause look far right in the middle its a pointed nose of something, plane, missle, you tell me, but its not there at 1.25 or 1.27

[edit on 17-5-2006 by Denied]



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
"Exceptional claims require exceptional proof."--Carl Sagan


I hate that phrase!

All any claim requires is proof.

A simple definition of proof is: "The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true." Obviously then, any proof is absolute, there is nothing exceptional about it.

It is a matter of individual choice how exceptional the evidence is before it is accepted. This is the reason that people such as James Randi can never have things proved to them: their beliefs will never change, no matter what evidence is provided.

I would not expect anyone on ATS to agree with this perspective - to me it is the antithesis of "deny ignorance".



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Denied
Forget the arguement, what about this.

pserver.mii.instacontent.net...

1.26 pause look far right in the middle its a pointed nose of something, plane, missle, you tell me, but its not there at 1.25 or 1.27

[edit on 17-5-2006 by Denied]


Why do you keep posting about this and linking to the video?



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 11:15 AM
link   
My husband says the the engines are made of a different kind of metal than the body of the plane and they should have been there after the crash. The engines are built to withstand very very high degree temperatures.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 11:17 AM
link   
I'm tired of this whole theory thing, yes the government could release the other videos that would most likely put everything to rest, but in reality, from these videos shown, and considering the quality of the camera that took the videos we can't tell what it is in the pictures. If we knew nothing about 9/11 and someone showed you those videos you'd honestly not be able to give any logical educated guess to what it was other than a flying object that hit the pentagon at an extreamly fast speed. I mean look at the car going past the camera before the plane hit, at best i'd say that car is going 20-30 mph and it jumps from one frame to another, what makes you think its going to perfectly capture a flying object moving 500+ mph. The fist video i the nost end that comes into view, to me, looks like a 757, the 2nd video doesn't. In fact if i didnt know any better i'd think they were taken at 2 completely different times and that they were 2 completely different objects.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by MagicaRose
My husband says the the engines are made of a different kind of metal than the body of the plane and they should have been there after the crash. The engines are built to withstand very very high degree temperatures.


That's a great point, Rose! Tell your hubby KUDOS!




Originally posted by Leto
Check out this screenshot I took from the newly released video. That white object in the right side of the screen does not look like a 757 at all, and it actually looks like the object is heading sharply downwards and that it should hit the lawn hard.
mywebpages.comcast.net...






Awesome job on the screenshot-- that thing looks WAY too small to be a 757... and how the hell would someone with VERY limited experience working with large planes be able to fly one that low to the ground anyway??



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 11:46 AM
link   
This videos doesn't changed anything. They didn't cleared anything. They can't allow to answer on a question what struck the Pentagon. One thing is 100% sure on this video is a Car passing by. There is some dark, strange object hardly visible in front of the smoke at 1:26 but the image is to bad to judge what it is and what it isn't. That's sad...



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Denied
pserver.mii.instacontent.net...

1.26 far right in the middle.....................


sorry everyone already noticed this object... hell how could you miss it that's what we are discussing, please stop spamming, you're not the first to find then in any way shape or form, it is all over the news they circle it, that's the object in question. It is not evidence for or against a 757 IMO you can't see anything there is not enough there, but everyone here keeps expecting a massive plane on screen, it would not be that big, compared to the pentagon.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 12:30 PM
link   
I think everyone is not asking/debating the correct questions, how does an alleged terrorist with very little training fly a modern jet in a steep descending almost 360 degree turn, then to fly along 1 metre above the ground past trees, lamposts, other buildings etc to hit the side of a building only 20 metres tall. And more importantly why, why not just dive the plane straight onto the Pentagon, why all the fancy dangerous manouvers to hit a target that from ground level presents you with a much smaller target to hit. I am sure that once the pentagon came into view, presenting a large target from the air then the pilot would have dove straight onto it creating far more damage and death than hitting a side of the building.
Terrorist commit random acts of violence there was nothing random about this attack it flies in the face of all logic for a terrorist to engage in such risky manouvers, the planes that hit WTC1/2 did not engage in such manouvers the planes were aimed straight at the buildings. I think you need to put yourself in the shoes of the alleged terrorist, what would you do, dive the plane into the building from high up to create more damage/death or would you fly along the ground hoping you might hit something.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Denied
i didnt see at first what u saw, then i was running through the video frame by frame and YES theres something there, no plane to me.


Exactly the same opinion here too. No way a large plane. Only thing that throws me is reading of 2 conspiracy people who were there and they said they saw the plane fly over them before impact. Such confusion.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
I think everyone is not asking/debating the correct questions, how does an alleged terrorist with very little training fly a modern jet in a steep descending almost 360 degree turn, then to fly along 1 metre above the ground past trees, lamposts, other buildings etc to hit the side of a building only 20 metres tall.

There were no trees or buildings in their way. Lamposts were hit.
The turn was such that anyone could do it especially if they're on a suicide mission and really don't care how the plane reacts.



And more importantly why, why not just dive the plane straight onto the Pentagon, why all the fancy dangerous manouvers to hit a target that from ground level presents you with a much smaller target to hit. I am sure that once the pentagon came into view, presenting a large target from the air then the pilot would have dove straight onto it creating far more damage and death than hitting a side of the building.

Then pentagon may not have been the initial target.


Terrorist commit random acts of violence there was nothing random about this attack it flies in the face of all logic for a terrorist to engage in such risky manouvers, the planes that hit WTC1/2 did not engage in such manouvers the planes were aimed straight at the buildings. I think you need to put yourself in the shoes of the alleged terrorist, what would you do, dive the plane into the building from high up to create more damage/death or would you fly along the ground hoping you might hit something.

Ok, say it wasn't terrorists. Why would anyone else do that?
If you think it was the government, why would the government do all that? If it wasn't Flight 77, then all the extra time in the air would have meant more people would have seen it wasn't flight 77, so why would the government risk that?



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Check out this gif animation of the tiny white object (there is no way that is a 757 or anything close to being as big as a 757) that appears in the right center of the screen from that new video released today by the government:



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
I think everyone is not asking/debating the correct questions, how does an alleged terrorist with very little training fly a modern jet in a steep descending almost 360 degree turn, then to fly along 1 metre above the ground past trees, lamposts, other buildings etc to hit the side of a building only 20 metres tall.


My thoughts exactly! As much as ThatsJustWeird believes that anyone can maneuver a 757 , these aircrafts are NOT agile. I would expcet flying one so close to the ground is no small task either, especially in an urban environment.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join