Flight77.info - Pentagon video release imminent?

page: 7
1
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 16 2006 @ 03:51 PM
link   
tom -

to THATSJUSTWEIRD have you actually seen these videos?????

Yeah, why?



Originally posted by Flyer
So why not show the plane from 10 different angles to convince that vast majority of people?

The reason they havent is because they want people to argue over this.

You can show the plane from 100000 different angles with beyond HD clarity, people would still argue. I can guarentee that.




posted on May, 16 2006 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Haven't read evreything that has been said but this latest video release is a crock. We've already seen the Pentagon 5 frame from back in september 2001 and it showed more then the latest release of the same video but severely edited. In the original 5 frames that were released by the pentagon we saw a learjet sized airplane. And now the new video only shows a nosecone!

Come on they are still hiding. Why wouldn't they show the Interstate video? or the Sheraton? This just fuels our suspicsion even more that this incident was faked and that possibly a smaller remote controlled military plane was involved.



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
All faked.

Or at least "enhanced" and "modified".


Jack, you should quote the people you are talking to, or at least specify a little further. I often can't properly understand who you were talking to or what you were talking about. Were you talking about todays officially released footage just then?

[edit on 16-5-2006 by Code_Burger]



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 03:55 PM
link   
yes it sure would seem as if this new video is getting more questions then answers.. i really hope they let out some other angles to help clear this up..cause damn this video sucks!!!!.. like i said the spoof gif. was better



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
You're answering questions with questions.

Am I?

Do I want to answer questions with answers?

Could I be more direct?

Do I sound like anyone else?

www.technochitlins.com...





Yeah, I find it highly improbable.

So because of NORAD, its immpossible to hijack and crash planes?


I do not like the way you have twisted my words though, Nygdan.

Have I twisted them? Should I twist them in a different way?

You didn't have to be quite so condescending, either.

Oh don't I?


CLick this link BBC

How is this any differnt than whats been released before? Is it simply another camera?

This is the best footage from security cameras at the pentagon?



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 03:59 PM
link   
if it were a good look of the plane, people would say the govt would have made it up

if it were bad like this tape, something else would have been wrong

damned either way

[edit on 16-5-2006 by blatantblue]



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 04:03 PM
link   
IMO there's not a lot there. But the frame right before the explosion shows something and there's no freakin way it's an airliner. It's clearly a missle or something of similar size and shape.

And this was used to convict Massoui?



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Why not show the camera from the hotel, and the camera from the gas station.
Guys it was a global hawk
, can some one post the images any way with the body aproching the pentagon, let's try to compare it to the boeing, let's see what descriprion it fit's better, I would of posted it my self but I just dont got the software to take snap shoots, will some one take a snap shoot and place it here.



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Yeah, I find it highly improbable.

So because of NORAD, its immpossible to hijack and crash planes?


You're doing it again, I didn't say it was impossible. I said "I find it highly improbable". The quote is right there, read it again if you are having difficulty understanding.


Originally posted by Nygdan

I do not like the way you have twisted my words though, Nygdan.

Have I twisted them? Should I twist them in a different way?


Yes you have twisted them, as I have demonstrated, and then further demonstrated again in my reply to you. And no, you shouldn't twist my words in a different way, just quote them as they are and then try your best to actually reply accurately. You're a Moderator, I'm sure you can do it.


Originally posted by Nygdan

You didn't have to be quite so condescending, either.

Oh don't I?


Fine. Be condescending then. I don't give a #.



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Does anyone have a good photo of a global hawk plane maybe with some relative size specs?

also ive heard that it was conflicting reports of 747 and/ or757 jets which one, for the record, is it?

also whats with the angle that the plane is coming in from....i mean is it me or does it seem to be coming straight in parallel to the ground? and i mean like right above the ground about maybe 5 ten maybe 15 feet off the ground?



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by TONE23
Does anyone have a good photo of a global hawk plane maybe with some relative size specs?

also ive heard that it was conflicting reports of 747 and/ or757 jets which one, for the record, is it?


I know for a fact there are ATS threads that go into great detail explaining these questions. I really couldn't tell you which ones exactly, though. This place is massive!



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by TONE23
Does anyone have a good photo of a global hawk plane maybe with some relative size specs?

Umm, I do not, but what I do have is a video of a F-4 Phantom hitting a concrete wall at 800 km/h. Will that do?

Video: Plane versus concrete wall

Some of you might want to reacquaint yourselves with Page 6 of this 2005 article and debunking?

Furthermore, here is CNNs 2002 video:
Video: Images show September 11 Pentagon crash






seekerof

[edit on 16-5-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 04:12 PM
link   
I have NEVER believed the Pentagon missile theory. I have been telling people how stupid it is (why not use a real plane and what about the witnesses?) but after this footage I have serious doubts.

For the first time I am starting to take the idea of a missile seriously. This is unreal. What are they playing at? This footage looks poorer quality than the original five frames.

Surely they have other footage. Why isn't there any footage of the actual wreckage? Surely they would take photos. Insurance companies advise to take a photo if you have a car accident if you have a camera handy.



[edit on 16-5-2006 by Clipper]



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by TONE23
Does anyone have a good photo of a global hawk plane maybe with some relative size specs?

also ive heard that it was conflicting reports of 747 and/ or757 jets which one, for the record, is it?

also whats with the angle that the plane is coming in from....i mean is it me or does it seem to be coming straight in parallel to the ground? and i mean like right above the ground about maybe 5 ten maybe 15 feet off the ground?


Here




[img]
www.globalsecurity.org...[/img]








We need now a snap shoot of the body aproching the pentagon so we can compare it.



[edit on 16-5-2006 by pepsi78]



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 04:17 PM
link   
So here is the extent of the "NEW" footage that shows a "plane".



Although I don't necessarily agree.....Alex Jones is still suggesting that they are doing it to increase speculation so they can "debunk" it later.


Pentagon Video Is Giant Psy-Op Intended to create circus of interest around 'no plane' theories, later debunk them



I don't think AJ has done enough pentagon research yet.

There was no 757.



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 04:17 PM
link   
I apologise if someone has already done/asked this, but is there anyone who could scale up what a 747 would look like, size-wise, compared to the Pentagon building from the sort Camera angle in the footage released today? Is that possible?



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Sorry SO... i know your buddy saw this first hand...
but to me, that video looked very much like a mid sized missle, and no sign of a jet hitting it...

Of course, we only have 5 seconds of stop motion, but one pic, did show a small craft "small plane, to cruise missle sized object" hit the pentagon...

Didn't clear anything up, but aren't there like 7 or 8 other perspectives and angles that they could have shown?

So why aren't they?



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Code_Burger

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
All faked.

Or at least "enhanced" and "modified".


Jack, you should quote the people you are talking to, or at least specify a little further. I often can't properly understand who you were talking to or what you were talking about. Were you talking about todays officially released footage just then?

[edit on 16-5-2006 by Code_Burger]


Well the "new" one is the same as the old one.

It's has simply been "officially" released and they added an angle that is even LESS clear.

But yes I believe it has been modified to make sure you can't tell what it is that hit.



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
Sorry SO... i know your buddy saw this first hand...
but to me, that video looked very much like a mid sized missle, and no sign of a jet hitting it...

Of course, we only have 5 seconds of stop motion, but one pic, did show a small craft "small plane, to cruise missle sized object" hit the pentagon...

Didn't clear anything up, but aren't there like 7 or 8 other perspectives and angles that they could have shown?

So why aren't they?



SO's "buddy" simply could have seen the decoy plane that landed within the same minute at Reagan airport.

Or else he mistook the drone painted as a commercial airliner flying at 400 mph to be a commercial airliner.

Understandable but no commercial airliner hit the pentagon.



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Well the "new" one is the same as the old one.

It's has simply been "officially" released and they added an angle that is even LESS clear.

But yes I believe it has been modified to make sure you can't tell what it is that hit.


OK, sorry, I just wasn't sure if you were talking to me or talking about todays released footage.



new topics
top topics
 
1
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join