It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


New Video Footage of Flight 77 Hitting Pentagon Released

page: 19
<< 16  17  18    20  21 >>

log in


posted on May, 21 2006 @ 09:22 PM

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I'm sorry, but I don't trust that Agent Smith's opinion of the perspective is correct. The 'plane' in the actual incident came in from a much different angle than this picture protrays so it's hard for me to buy that theory. As it approached the Pentagon, the plane would have appeared to 'grow' in size if we could see the real thing, so I believe that picture is just very misleading.

Maybe the plane would have been that size as it came in from the right side, but the angle of approach would change everything.

Not to mention that the highly magnified pictures in this post look nothing like a plane OR a missile.

In fact, I'm leaning toward the Global Hawk-painted-with-the-right-colors theory...

Originally posted by BJonesLHS
If the camera displays frames per second, then you would not be able to see a missile.

WHAT? That depends on which moment in time the camera captured. Unless you saying a missile goes so fast it can't be seen by the naked eye...

I would have to tell you that their are misisles that cannot be seen by the naked eye due to the speed of them. Have you forgotten that this is the United States, and we are capable of having such capability? And all I'm saying is that if it were a missile that hit that building, that camera would not have been fast enough to catch that missile since it's frames run every second. From that angle where you first see the plane on the right, that plane was no more than 50-75 feet away from impact, and if it were a missile you would not even see any parts of it at all.

FallenFromTheTree stated that one would have to be a skilled pilot to fly at low altitudes as we have encountered in this situation, well all I have to say to you is that that's why they came to this country. They wanted to learn how to "fly" and fly only. Not take off or land. That's one of the reasons why they did not pursue to take action in hijacking until the plane was in the air; they didn't take off. And so, they learned to fly at low altitudes, etc because that's part of the training they go through in Flight School. Besides who knows how low the plane was flying? All we can determine is how low that plane was going by viewing what we saw in those images. Nobody has the exact measurements in feet the plane was from the ground. All we know is that it was flying at a very low altitude, and was low enough to impact the exterior of the building.

posted on May, 21 2006 @ 10:02 PM
shots, thanks for responding
Sometimes I think I might be on global ignore!

I wonder who has said it was going 500 mph? If it was witnesses, could a regular person on the street guage the difference between 345 and 500 mph?

I still don't know what to believe, but this plane (the Global Hawk)is the closest I've seen to the blob that's in that picture.

posted on May, 21 2006 @ 11:33 PM
The amount of anger I got from this "video" encouraged me to actually log back in and post and have another short lived obsession with ATS
(They come in waves, spend a month on ATS, no sleep or school, then a month with no ATS
, it's an addicton.)

This "video" is...well..I could of made a better video with the frames they released. The video they released is going at 1 FPS, how can I tell? they had to slow down the video for us to see the white dot hit the building. Had it been going, atleast...15 FPS? For those who dont know what FPS is - Frames Per Second, you can think of it many pictures the camera takes in one second.

If I were to take the 5(6?) frames they released, and flash them before you in order, quickly, you'd see the same thing as the video. Can I be bothered to do that and export it into .avi? No

However the timestamps are incorrect on the frames, they're on the 12th, and there is a gap in the time. (IE 0:01, 0:02, 0:04, 0:05, etc.)

Ah, feels good to get that all out.

posted on May, 21 2006 @ 11:36 PM

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
shots, thanks for responding
Sometimes I think I might be on global ignore!

I wonder who has said it was going 500 mph? If it was witnesses, could a regular person on the street guage the difference between 345 and 500 mph?

I still don't know what to believe, but this plane (the Global Hawk)is the closest I've seen to the blob that's in that picture.

The Flight Data Recorder was recovered in the building. It showed a speed of 534 mph at the time of impact.

posted on May, 22 2006 @ 01:05 AM
I'd love to know what else the flight data recorder showed.

I imagine it's a lot like the Nixon tapes.

posted on May, 22 2006 @ 07:33 AM

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I wonder who has said it was going 500 mph? If it was witnesses, could a regular person on the street guage the difference between 345 and 500 mph?

I am not positive, but I do believe that the speed was determined by air controllers before it went off the radar. I would also say it would be impossible for humans to determine the speed by sight because race cars are blur at 230 let alone 500 mph when viewed by the human eye.

A good test for that theory is just to watch a high speed chase on cops or similar program where they are chasing a drunk etc., most of the time it is very hard to see them when they are moving in the same direction at perhaps 120 130 mph max. Imagine what it would be like if the cars were traveling at 500?????

As for the global hawk theory one would think (knowing that it only has one engine) if one of its wings hit a pole it would tend to put it in to some sort of spin at least that is my guess. In this case at least two poles were taken down and yes they did break away but the wings of a hawk are nothing compared to that of a 757, which again gives me doubt that a hawk could have made it to the building.

p.s. I hope that global ignore was not addressed to me, if I have missed replying to one of your posts I applogize, because I must have missed it. Just because we disagreed on that one subject is by no means a reason to put you on Ignore I only do that wo wise mouths which you are not

Ah I also see now that zap knew the answer to where the speed came from. I replied to your response before seeing it (my Bad)

[edit on 5/22/2006 by shots]

posted on May, 22 2006 @ 08:27 AM
This was the reason I found ATS in the first place - from this video link aboyt 4.5 years ago.

Well I can tell you that the video is actually the same video I saw then, nothing has been cleared up besides the Pentagon's 'TO DO' box on Rumsfelds desk.

What a waste of time this US Goverment is...

posted on May, 22 2006 @ 08:53 AM
Vinci, I agree with you totally. It reminds me of this proof of life on Mars photo:

Zaphod58, Thanks for the info. Now... If we're not sure that there really was a plane, I wonder if there really was a recorder.

shots, the 'global ignore' comment wasn't directed at you. Sorry. It was just my lame attempt as what passes for humor in our home...

And yes, I can't reconcile the poles being knocked down with the Global Hawk theory, although the site I posted attempts to do so. But it doesn't throw me off the GH theory completely.

Valorian, I found the same thing in my research. This 'newly released footage' has been around forever. They've just now shown it on TV so that makes it legitimate.

posted on May, 23 2006 @ 02:30 AM

Originally posted by Muaddib
This is the same professor who for a long time made the world believe he could acquire free energy... This is a professor who especializes in nuclear fusion, he is not an architect, nor is he a civil, or structural engineer, and he did not specialized at all in skyscrapers. Just because he has a degree in physics, and his specialty is in "nuclear fusion" it doesn't mean he is an expert on anything else...

Nice try.

Now how about actually disproving one single sentence in his specific paper?

Did you know that several hundred scientists, many whom have no links whatsoever to the government, have debunked the obvious lie that there were "explosives" in the WTC?....

This topic has been discussed many times... Doing a search in these forums you will find plenty of evidence... But again, some people just want to believe, no matter what, that "the government was behind it...


Well since there is "plenty" of evidence, show me one single shred of it. I read 140+ pages of this BS that you claim is "evidence" in these forums. There is none.

It's funny how you are incapable of refuting Pr. Jones' paper at any single point while you turn around and claim that there's "plenty" of evidence while saying, ironically, that "some people just want to believe".

My friend, it would thus seem that you have no evidence and "just want to believe..."

So, please copy/paste the "debunking" from one of these supposed hundreds of scientists. This ought to be good...

Again people want to speak without any experience on these matters...

Perhaps you would remember that there were over 3,000 dismembered bodies amongst the ruins. It was an open grave in the middle of one of the biggest cities in the United States. They had to clean up everything so that no disease would spread throughout the city.

But again, some people prefer to claim that "the ruins were cleaned up to hide something else"....

[edit on 19-5-2006 by Muaddib]

The steel beams, Muaddib, the steel beams. Instead of analyzing them they were shipped off, weren't they. Now what the bodies have to do with not analyzing the steel beams, only you know.

posted on May, 23 2006 @ 02:50 AM

Originally posted by Muaddib
Again this shows how much people like yourself have research into this, I gave several links which provides photos and documentation on what happened that day, and in those pictures you can clearly see the parts of a passenger aircraft....

"People like myself" have easily demonstrated that your photos and "documentation" are circumstantial at best and laughable at worst, here and here.

Like I said, no offence but don't quit your job to become a prosecutor because if you tried to win cases based on such "documentation", you would get laughed out of court.

It doesn't take much evidence of anything to make a believer out of you, does it?

Let's take one small example, shall we? How about that part of fuselage with a bit of "American Airlines" logo on it. You see it and claim "There! Fuselage from an AA 757! Good enough for me! PROOF!!!"

If almost the entire plane got supposedly vaporized, why isn't that part singed at least on the edges? Why is the paint shiny new, even on the edges? Why is it perched heavy side up? Why aren't any rivets torn from the violent explosion? Why isn't the grass singed where it landed?

It would seem that it raises more questions than it answers, doesn't it. It would seem most supsicious, in fact. A crash investigator would laugh at your claims that this is "proof".

posted on May, 23 2006 @ 02:58 AM

Originally posted by Muaddib
Perhaps you should make a favour to yourself and check and read back in this same thread and you will find the links and photos....

Perhaps you should do both of us a favour and finally click on the links I've provided several times already as they link to the 140+ page "A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon" thread, where I clearly analyze the photos, the links etc etc, one by one.

So, stop repeating something that is false. I have checked and read all of this supposed "evidence" you keep referring to.

Not only that, I've easily demonstrated that it's a bunch of hooey.

Would you care to debate one specific bit of this supposed "evidence"?

posted on May, 23 2006 @ 03:22 AM
Muaddib, I love how you completely sidestep my responses to CatHerder's points. I debunked each and every one of his dozen claims, yet the only thing you are referring to from my posts is my very first post where I summarize 9/11 overall. How about refuting any one of my specific rebuttals to CatHerder's thesis of Flight 77? You cannot, can you. Now, since you want to discuss my first introductory general post in here and not the rebuttals of this so called "evidence" of a supposed 757, I shall indulge you.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Your replies are nothing more than speculation...

You speculate that because the president wasn't immediately spirited away when the planes hit the twin towers, that "there must be something sinister going on and the government must have known" or some other nonsense....

I never said that "something sinister was going on". You are adding "flavour" of your own to my words, so as to degrade my queries.

Now, the first job of the Secret Service is to protect the President. Airplanes are being hijacked and flown into towers, the President is at a well publicized, prearranged photo-op 4 miles from a major airport, yet the Secret Service doesn't get anxious enough to say "Mr. President, the nation is under attack, our location is well-known, let's get the heck out of here"?!?!?

First of all, planes weren't "raining from the skies" as you were trying to speculate...

Sure, planes are being flown into towers, others are off course and not responding, only to come crashing down happens now and then. Would "drizzling" instead of "raining" be better for you?

Second, the government had no idea what was going on until the second aircraft hit tower 1, and that I know of there were no plans on destroying a hihjacked aircraft when it is already inside U.S. airspace and flying over an American city...

"That you know of", being the operative phrase there. How about doing some real research for a change and getting back to me on this....

Third of all, unless there is specific knowledge of a direct threat to the president where he was at, moving him would more likely make him more of a target...

Yep, he's safer at a well publicized, pre-arranged photo-op at an elementary school building. You're really reaching now....

As for your "wild claim" that most of the aircraft was "vaporized".... The photos shows that you are wrong... 90 nor 99% of the aircraft wasn't vaporized....

First of all, the only thing I claim is that there is hardly any evidence of any parts whatsoever, never mind 100 tons of parts. To square this, all of you who defend the official line claim that there's hardly any wreckage because it got "vaporized", "atomized" etc.

I'm not the one claiming vaporization, you guys are because there's no other way for you to explain why there's hardly any wreckage, never mind tons and tons of it. But, since you claim that "90 nor 99% of the aircraft wasn't vaporized", well, where is it? Show me tons of wreckage, even in itty bitty pieces.

The claim that it is strange that 98% of a persons dna survived and that this is some sort of evidence of some sort of nothing but a deceit.... You only need to find one human cell, one small piece of hair, even a dead cell, to find the dna of a person... and yes, you can find dna on the burned remains of a person....

The plane that the DNA was riding in was never found but everyone's DNA was. Do you realize how laughable that claim is? The explosion was so violent that it supposedly vaporized an entire plane but not violent enough to vaporize the DNA in it! LOL!!

posted on May, 23 2006 @ 03:34 AM

Originally posted by Muaddib
Really, even after giving excerpts from a real aeronautical engineer, and showing that the parts of the engines found inside the Pentagon match the parts of a 757, and after being proved that Vialls is nothing more than a hoaxer trying to make money...and some people still want to say it was not a 757....
Talk about denial...

[edit on 21-5-2006 by Muaddib]

Wow. Talk about believing anything that's offered to you...

"Showing that the parts of the engines found inside the Pentagon match the parts of a 757"....

Maybe I'm slow but could you demonstrate how it's proven "that the parts of the engines found inside the Pentagon match the parts of a 757?"

And even if you did, that would only be the beginning because that still wouldn't prove it was parts of Flight 77.

[edit on 23/5/2006 by Aris]

posted on May, 23 2006 @ 04:09 AM
Lol think about it, on the wtc both boeing leave a clear 50-60 feet hole in the structure. On the pentagon a 8 feet hole in a window b4 they tear the wall down, most of the ppl think the wall fell from itself but not.

posted on May, 23 2006 @ 09:00 AM

Just taking a look at the scale of this bird and even with direct statements from 2 fire fighting professionals saying it was definitely a plane,
I still have trouble figuring out where all of it went to.

posted on May, 23 2006 @ 12:52 PM

posted on May, 24 2006 @ 04:09 AM
You people want to know why they jack around and cover things up so sloopy??? BECAUSE THEY DON'T GIVE A CRAP! THEY KNOW THAT EVEN THOUGH THERE IS SUCH A BIG PILE OF CRAP ON THEM THAT NO ONE WILL DO ANYTHING AT THIS POINT TO STOP IT! NOT ENOUGH FOR ANYTHING DAMAGING! Look at all of you... argueing on this forum... there are many good points and truths on this site than a lot of BS and disinformation and people attacking people that are right because they just don't believe it. You guys won't do a damn thing... and if Im wrong than show me someone that has... you can't unless your willing to lay down your life and most American's / Europeans ladies and gentle sit in they're corner and play good non-question asking citizens or when they do ask questions and find the truth they never accept the fact that this government at almost all of its high places is bad. I can understand the people that play good citizen right now and the many people that work on the inside... but many of you that deny and ignore the truth and listen to the lies that you are told in whatever personal AMERICAN DREAM you live in... well in a short time that dream will be gone and you will regrete it and wished you listened to the warnings to save that very American Dream you got to enjoy!!!

PS : Quit blaming one President for something that has been planned for a very long time... his actions are merely the echos of his fellows ahead of him years and years in the making...

[edit on 24-5-2006 by nihilanth]

posted on May, 24 2006 @ 04:53 AM
Even though all these things will soon have more serious results than we even see now... I actually kinda find it all pretty funny... it almost seems like they do too. All the public screw ups and bad cover ups... its is pretty funny if you ask me. W is one of the funniest guys ever... I love how he even smiles and wiggles his ear piece when he got busted HAHAHA! "Now... Jim Angle"

[edit on 24-5-2006 by nihilanth]

posted on May, 24 2006 @ 04:59 AM
Hahah, good one Eagle Eye...

posted on May, 24 2006 @ 07:44 AM
I'm sure the families of those killed on 9/11 and the kids at Walter Reed sitting there with their legs and arms blown off think this is freeking hillarious.

new topics

top topics

<< 16  17  18    20  21 >>

log in