New Video Footage of Flight 77 Hitting Pentagon Released

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 16 2006 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente
Interearthling - have you seen the video? Let me ask you another question - did you PERSONALLY SEE a PLANE hit the Pentagon in that video -


Let me ask you this. Do you have any idea of how large a missle is compared to the fuselage of a 757?

A missile would've never shown up in the video. Not even as a streak. A misslie the size of what's shown in the video would have ultimately destroyed the entire Pentagon.

So Seraphim, did you actually witness a missile hitting the Pentagon along with 90% of ATS members?

[edit on 16/5/06 by Intelearthling]




posted on May, 16 2006 @ 09:33 PM
link   
WestPoint23 & solidstate & Interearthling - let me ask you a question - how hard would it be to alter or modify the exterior of a Plane to make it LOOK as if it were a Commercial Airliner (I am NOT saying that it MUST have been a Missile that hit the Pentagon Interearthling - just that it DEF was NOT a 757 - I do NOT SEE a 757 in that video). Perhaps take some 757 spare parts along for the ride. It is more than Possible!


Why you ask? I don't know why Politicians & the Feds are Pathologically Lying B*stards - they just are! How easy do you think it was for them to dupe your average idiotic American into support for their "War On Terror"?


[edit on 16-5-2006 by Seraphim_Serpente]



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 09:34 PM
link   
That video has been obviously doctored to try and show you something. Snap a picture with your camera in default mode of a child running by you. You'll capture a blur. You'll get a blur if the object is moving with any speed at all. I have a nice digital slr and in order for me to capture children running around without the blur I have to go with a very fast shutter setting. I like to set it to the fastest I can get when using a flash wish is just under 1/400th of a second. I like to try and capture water pouring out of a bucket. Its really cool to try and capture water falling and have it perfectly clear. But I cannot get that pulled off with that setting. I still get a blur. And the water isn't moving that fast. Not 500+ mph. In a video that wasn't edited you'd see nothing but fuzz much like was in the original video. This latest video is a fraud. Release the gas station video and hotel video unedited. Otherwise I have no choice but to accuse those hiding the evidence of obstruction of justice.



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Its absurd, they cant be serious,no even half intelligent person veiwing that will even care what their lame BS excuse is, it must be because theyre actually the worlds stupidest criminials, its an insult to EVERYBODY!

When the facts are simple BS is by nature ridiculous!
If this was my court of law this would be INADMISSABLE.
Show us the plane!
The hole in the bldg was tiny!
There was barely any debris field!

BS! BS! BS! BS!!!!!!!
@#$%$#%^&%!!!


[edit on 16-5-2006 by aeonsbeyond]



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Code_Burger
Actually I'm thinking they were on a smaller plane than a 747/757. There were only 66 passengers, weren't there? Did they have to be on a big plane?


So where did the 757 go? Disappear into thin air?

The video totally looks like a plane, when viewing frame by frame. I'll have some screen capyures in a little bit explaining what I see.

Hmm... I can't download the videos. Does anyone know how I could get them?

[edit on 5/16/2006 by cmdrkeenkid]



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 09:43 PM
link   
This video unequivocally shows the official story to be a lie.

Shots, your thread title says "New Video Footage of Flight 77 Hitting Pentagon Released". Where in the video do you see anything that identifies the thing that hit the Pentagon as Flight 77 or a jetliner of any make or model?

The object enters the video (Video 2) at frame 24. The explosion occurs instantly at frame 25. If these frames are 1/2 second apart in time, isn't that too fast for a bright yellow/white fireball of that magnitude to erupt from the fuel contained in the plane's wings?

There is no shadow of a plane or any part of a plane in frame 24. There is and cannot be a shadow of a plane in frame 25 because the entire object has already crashed into its target, the Pentagon.

The object that appears in frame 24 is much too small to be a Boeing 757. It is obviously not a 757. It is clearly something other than what the government is saying it is.

Where is all the other video evidence that was so quickly confiscated by the government on the day of the event? How were they able to get their act together so quickly and go to the locations where the other video evidence was confiscated if this event was unexpected?

As others have noted, the release of this video seems timed to give GW a boost at a time when he's facing serious flak over the NSA's trampling of our constitutional right to privacy. I predict this will backfire since it shows nothing of the kind that they claim it shows, but just the opposite.

What arrogance to think that publicly proclaiming this video shows Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon, when it clearly does not, will lead the public to think so. But, then, it has swayed members of the media who should know better, as shown by their ill-considered description of what these videos show.

The public may be all too willing to believe what they are told rather than what they perceive through their own senses, but this is just going too far. This may be the slap in the face that finally wakes the sleeping giant up.



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 09:46 PM
link   
They can't even accurately doctor the videos. One video camera is about 10 to 12 feet in front of the other. Yet the object in one video comes in at a much steeper angle than the other. Video 2 is the first video that was release a long time ago. In the original you can't make out anything but a blur. I hope they get a refund from whoever did the editing work because it was a poor job.



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente
WestPoint23 & solidstate - let me ask you a question - how hard would it be to alter or modify the exterior of a Plane to make it LOOK as if it were a Commercial Airliner. Perhaps take some 757 spare parts along for the ride. It is more than Possible!


I know you're not addressing me but how difficult would it be to keep thousands of air traffic controllers, who knew this was Flight 77, quiet? The families of the 125 passengers and crew members, of Flight 77, that knew their loved ones boarded that fateful flight?

Please don't make a mockery of their deaths!

It's exactly what you and these other naysayers are doing.



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 09:50 PM
link   
I still dont think that it fits the description of a 757. The plane in the crappy video is definitlely smaller than a 757. It would've filled up more of the screen and we really wouldve been able to tell it was a 757 if it was. As to what it really is, i have no clue but im just stating the obvious that its definitely not a 757 in that video.



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Interesting you should bring up the controllers. First off the transponder was turned off so they had no idea what was flying around. They had come up with flight 77 by process of elimination. In fact (and it has been documented) that some controllers thought it must have been a fighter jet flying around because of the moves it was making. Some have already spoken out about what they thought it was but people just choose to ignore it. Keeping the families quiet? Most think their loved ones were killed when the jet hit the Pentagon. They don't know any better. They believe what they were told. "Eye witness" accounts are just a rehash of what they have been told. It would be like you sitting on your porch and out of the corner of your eye you see a flash of something as it buzzes by you. Your neighbor comes over and says "did you see that plane just fly by?" Later on a reporter asks what you saw and you say "I was sitting on my porch and all the sudden the plane buzzes by me." You have no idea what it was. You took what your neighbor saw and add it to what your experience was and you create a conclusion based little on fact. That plane would have been moving so fast that people would have had a split second to spot the plane and accurately identify the make, model and airline before it hit the building. The point is they were told an AA 757 had hit the Pentagon so they just put 2 & 2 together. They have no idea what hit because none of them had the chance to spot the jet and make an accurate evaluation of what kind it was. The fact is something buzzed by them at speeds in excess of 500mph and exploded. Watch the Indy 500 in a couple of weeks and keep an eye out for the shots at track level and try and make out the cars as they drive by at 170mph. Those things buzz by so fast you can barely get a color let alone figure out whose car it is. Record it with your dvd player and play it at 2x or 3x speed and see if you can make anything out.



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Intelearthling
The families of the 125 passengers and crew members, of Flight 77, that knew their loved ones boarded that fateful flight?


I thought there were only 66 passengers and 12 crew on 77? Isn't that extraordinarily low for that type of flight at that time in the morning?


Originally posted by Intelearthling
Please don't make a mockery of their deaths!

It's exactly what you and these other naysayers are doing.


I'm not making a mockery of anyones death, thank you. Questioning the Governments story is in no way mocking the dead.



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by dubiousone
If these frames are 1/2 second apart in time, isn't that too fast for a bright yellow/white fireball of that magnitude to erupt from the fuel contained in the plane's wings?


Have you ever seen a plane crash before? Look at this video of an F-16 of the Air Force's Thunderbird Group crashing.

As you can see, the fireball is instantaneously as it crashes. And the 757 would have a lot more mass and a lot more fuel.



The object that appears in frame 24 is much too small to be a Boeing 757. It is obviously not a 757. It is clearly something other than what the government is saying it is.


How can you say that? Do you know the distance to the plane? Do you know what its angular size would be at that distance? I would like to see your math proving that that is not a 757. As soon as I can get the videos onto my harddrive and do some screen caps, I'll point out how it is a 757.



How were they able to get their act together so quickly and go to the locations where the other video evidence was confiscated if this event was unexpected?


Uh... Because the Pentagon is right there and they probably already knew what video cameras on establishments pointed at the building?


Originally posted by Code_Burger
I thought there were only 66 passengers and 12 crew on 77? Isn't that extraordinarily low for that type of flight at that time in the morning?


No. Airlines fill as many as they can, if they can't fill the plane, they can't fill the plane. In the long run it's cheaper to just fly with a smaller load than to cancel the flight and bump people to other flights that will get them to their destination.

That all being said...

When was the Pentagon built? Ground was broken on September 11, 1941. It was completed 18 months later, in March, 1943. Now, following WWII and entering the Cold War. The Pentagon had been nicknamed "Ground Zero," as it was suspected to be one of the very first targets of a nuclear missile. Don't you think that during this time they did renovations to it to help the building withstand a near-miss of a nuclear attack? Well, couldn't it be that these renovations included strengthening the walls of the Pentagon?

They could have done something similar to the walls along the lines of how nuclear reactor encasements are built. Watch this test video of an F-4 Phantom II crashing into a prototype of one of these walls, at 500 mph. The plane literally disappears into thin air. Now, a 757 moving at 500 mph would have much more mass than the F-4, and therefore more intertia, allowing it to be able to penetrate along the lines where the most mass is, the fuselauge. The wings would have blown up from the force of the impact as well as from the fuel inside.

This theory would also explain why so little parts of the plane were left behind.

[edit on 5/16/2006 by cmdrkeenkid]



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Good point about the small loads. September 11, 2001 was a Tuesday. That isn't exactly the busiest travel day of the week. The week after Labor Day isn't a busy travel week either. However the morning rush is always the busiest travel time of the day. I find it interesting that not a single flight that day (of the 4) managed a 50% load. In fact the loads on the 767's (or was it 777's???) would have struggled to hit 30%.

An American Airlines 757-200 (the smaller of the 757's) seats 188.
An American Airlines 767-200 (the smaller of the 767's) seats 167
An American Airlines 767-300 (the larger of the 767's) seats 215

A United Airlines 757-200 seats 182
A United Airlines 767-300 (domestic) seats 244
A United Airlines 777-200 (domestic) seats 348



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indy
I find it interesting that not a single flight that day (of the 4) managed a 50% load. In fact the loads on the 767's (or was it 777's???) would have struggled to hit 30%.


They were 757 and 767s. The flights were also direct, transcontinental flights. They don't normally have a very high rate of passage, but you need the long distance, endurance-type planes to do with without any stops.



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 10:23 PM
link   
We have a number of daily nonstops from here to LAX and they are very full usually. I'm thinking 80%+ on the load every day. Many times the flights are sold out. They may be the A319's but they still have over 100 people in them. Flights between those huge markets should do better than those few people they had on board.



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 10:30 PM
link   
Am I the only one who remembers this video from atleast a year ago? Thats one small plane.



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indy
We have a number of daily nonstops from here to LAX and they are very full usually. I'm thinking 80%+ on the load every day. Many times the flights are sold out. They may be the A319's but they still have over 100 people in them. Flights between those huge markets should do better than those few people they had on board.


Ah, I was under the idea that they didn't get many passengers on flights heading west early in the morning like that. My misunderstanding.


Originally posted by Wask
Am I the only one who remembers this video from atleast a year ago? Thats one small plane.


I'd like to see your math too, demonstrating how you knew the size of the plane.


Does anyone know how I can save those videos??

[edit on 5/16/2006 by cmdrkeenkid]



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 11:18 PM
link   
I cannot believe anyone is so stupid as to think after nearly five years and this is all we get for proof? A supermarket has better video than that pointed at the parking lot! You think the petagon is going to have that kind of bad quality and nothing else?!?! Have people been that dumbed down?

Now I am not saying it was NOT an airplane, I am saying WHY ARE THEY RELEASING THIS CRAP>!!! Somethng is very suspicious about this video release. They know how many dupes will buy into it already! Otherwise they wouldnt have tried it.

Why not show the goods? Why would they try this crap? Something isnt right.



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 11:21 PM
link   
Here once again the gov. takes us as a fool. There will always be those who will not, no matter the evidence accept that the government is lying. If it really was the plane they say, then we should see them release all the video evidence to prove it.
The whole 911 issue is a cloud of deception. The only way the real truth will be found will be by accident.
Until undebateable proof is produced, I will remain set that it was not a passanger airliner.



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 11:31 PM
link   
I've read through a lot of what's been posted here about 9/11, and I do believe there is more to it than planes being flown into buildings.

However, I am curious about one thing (and I apologize if I over looked it); how does one explain the flight manifest. Was that faked? Were all of the family members of the ones lost actors/government agents? If it wasn't a 757 or whatever, how does one explain all the people who were "supposedly" on board?

I don't care who you are, it would be rather difficult to just make a couple hundred people disappear.

Are there any conspiracy theory solutions to this?





new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join