Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

New Video Footage of Flight 77 Hitting Pentagon Released

page: 21
3
<< 18  19  20   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Why did it take them so long to edit this video?




posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 07:21 PM
link   
There is no way that this is a 747, it's just too small, looks more like a drone, it's size reported to the pentagon is more like a toy aircraft, or a fighter jet, it's amasing how some of you will insist that you see a 747, this video does not provide credibility that it was a large passanger jet, what it does tho is the contrary, it makes it look like something smaller hit the pentagon.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
There is no way that this is a 747,


You're right about one thing. It ISN'T a 747. Flight 77 was an American Airlines 757, which IS a much smaller aircraft. And I wouldn't call it a "large passenger jet".



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Originally posted by pepsi78
There is no way that this is a 747,


You're right about one thing. It ISN'T a 747. Flight 77 was an American Airlines 757, which IS a much smaller aircraft. And I wouldn't call it a "large passenger jet".

yea, I'm sorry 757 still large as hell, that is not the nose and shape of a 757, I know how they look, that plane is way too thin.
Here is your little aircraft.


Can you imagine that the camera on this pic is far away but the plane looks huge , I'm sure the distance from the plane in this pic is far enough,
now where is the camera at the pentagon placed , and what is the distance betwen it and the impact area.
Your imaginary 757 looks like a little remote control plane in size , at best a fighter jet.



[edit on 2-12-2007 by pepsi78]



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Pfft on the devil. I'm going with the planted bomb conspiracy at the Pentagon. Why 'they' blew up the Pentagon, I will never know, but 'they' had their reasons and it wasn't for the good of American people either.


2001: America is severely 'attacked' and off to war we go. Gasoline is around $1.35 here in central Mississippi. I keep my knives sharp and my weapons loaded in the event this was a signal for certain folk to rise up and start attacking Americans.

2008: America's currency is devaluing at an alarming rate. Diesal is $4 a gallon in Pearl, MS and the refinery for local diesal and gasoline is just a couple of hours down the road. W. Bush thinks war is romantic and admits it. Gee, buddy, go visit a burn ward at a local VA hospital and see how romantic that is. Or a spinal cord ward. Or a brain injury through IED ward. Or an amputee ward at any VA hospital. Still keeping the weapons ready because as food and fuel costs rise, so will home burglaries and carjackings. My enemy knows where I live.




posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 09:41 PM
link   
It still looks like just an explosion.

Some special type that someone posted.

The 911 investigation never looked at many evidential suggestions.

Mostly Alex Jones and the inside job claim.

911 Octopus goes into fake FBI evidence, so they get hated a lot too.



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 09:58 PM
link   
That looked like a cruise missile not a giant airliner. Skipping across concrete huh? Why then were there no sparks from the friction cause? Or friction related explosions? At such high speeds this would have been seen on the video.

I don't buy this crap one bit. Where are the massive engines of this plane? None of this makes sense to me. I don't see how this closes the case. Telling me the sky is purple as you show me a picture of a purple sky doesn't stop me from looking up to see if you're just trying to manipulate me. And how full of it you are. Thanks Pentagon!



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 06:45 AM
link   
I have an active FOIA request in the works to the FAA requesting certain important forensic details of the flight 77 crash investigation. I just received an update to my original request recently and it is still active.

As with ANY crash investigation, there are numerous very specific details that should be on file
as part of their report.

These highly detailed, customary forensic protocols have always been followed in the past,
so we'll see how it turns out.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 08:09 AM
link   
Let's face it and think about it logically. Your a terrorist hell bent on taking out the pentagon right?
You've learnt to fly but not land.
You board a plane and hijack it.
Your distracted by the confusion and the tension on the plane, your worried incase the passangers try to retake it from you, Your trying to remember what your intructor taught you, Your no way a professional pilot, you only have 1 task.

To hit the Pentagon.

You fly a passnger aircraft feet from the floor INTO THE SIDE of the Pentagon.

CAN YOU DO THAT?

NO is the answer . you've taken control, you just want to crash into the building , your not professional enough to keep the plane level a few feet above the ground. You'd aim for the biggest part that you can see and try to aim for the middle of the biulding to maximise the damage.
Logically they'd flown high then point the plane nose first into the centre of the building top , Thats the logical plan. Isn't it?
The best pilot in the world couldn't keep an aircraft level feet from the floor, the ground is uneven then there's the obstructions of other buildings, roadways and pylons, but still you hit the side of the building which is the smallest area?
At least with the twin towers they had very little to no chance of hitting anything other than they're target because of their height.
IMO...
To hit a target that small you wouldn't want to waste your life on a one hit wonder.


Can you say computer control missile???



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by DataWraith
 


What you don't realize, Data, is the jet can be flown at 4 or 5 hundred feet above the ground, then just the final part of the 'flight' it dives down low for the impact. I drive by the Pentagon often, it has a very large parking lot. The way the jet came, it followed a highway, descended, clipped some light poles and a vehicle (actually a diesel generator) before impacting the building.

There were pieces of the airplane seen by first responders, for Chrissake! And human remains....



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Waaaay too many posts to read all of them so I will risk repeating what someone else may have already pointed out.

There are two frames which matter. Both show a white streak. If it were a UFO video everyone would be laughing at the poster. I'm sure this is the 'proof' that everyone wants to see, the white cylindrical flash of a 3 feet off the ground in a single frame from a minimally maintained video surveillance camera with the wrong date on it.

Trillions in defense - this is all they are showing, no radar tracks, no alternate camera angles, nothing to indicate that the Pentagon was under any better surveillance than a local 7-11.

WHATEVER - if you feel this is the holy grail of debunking videos - enjoy. This is pablum for the masses. Seven years later and the details are still 'a secret'. - where are the video tapes from the local buildings in the area? Dozens were confiscated by the FBI, are they 'too' secret too?



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 09:08 AM
link   
I will reserve judgement until highly experienced industry professionals have the answers they are looking for. Pilots, designers, technicians, aircraft mechanics and others all wondering what really happened.

The more we find out, the more conflicting evidence seems to come to light and that is probably
why it is taking so long to get straight answers.

The FAA has responded telling me that they are just now beginning to answer FOIA requests
filed YEARS ago.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Why there is no other footage from the other cameras, is because those cameras are further out and would show the entire airplane/drone and the government can't allow that. So instead they show the worst footage, from the worst angle, showing 1 frame of a nose of SOMETHING hitting. 1 frame shows the nose, the next frame shows a fireball. It's the same smoke and mirrors BS they fed us the first time around. People don't seem to realize just how large a 757 is. Apparently 60 million dollars worth of a plane, engines, seats, bodies all just simply vaporized inside a hole a 1/4 of the size of the planes width. RIGHT!! Yet we have countless times recovered way more wreckage of planes smashing into the ground, the ground is a hell of a lot harder then a hollow building! A 757 is not a small plane...



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by DataWraith
 


What you don't realize, Data, is the jet can be flown at 4 or 5 hundred feet above the ground, then just the final part of the 'flight' it dives down low for the impact. I drive by the Pentagon often, it has a very large parking lot. The way the jet came, it followed a highway, descended, clipped some light poles and a vehicle (actually a diesel generator) before impacting the building.

There were pieces of the airplane seen by first responders, for Chrissake! And human remains....


My main point still stands though, If your a terrorist and your flying a jet to crash it into a building , you dont fly even a few hundred feet about the ground to try and hit one wall do you?
NO you head up ,then point the jet into a nose dive to cause the maximum amount of damage to as much of the building as possible. It defeats the object of the task to risk crashing into an object before the main target , you want to leave as little room for error as you can.
It makes no sense to me to aim for a small wall compared to the size of the building?
As for wreckage and 'remains' I have yet to see any conclusive proof one way or the other.
I ain't flaming you for you opinion after all thats why we're all on here. opinions not flaming.



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Biggest lie you americans need to fix!!!

Before its too late!





new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 18  19  20   >>

log in

join