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.

 

New Video Footage of Flight 77 Hitting Pentagon Released

page: 9
3
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2006 @ 01:05 AM
link   
my apologies if this link has already been posted. Has awesome images and poses valid questions to back up the theory that there is NO way a 747 plowed into the Pentagon.

What did...I won't even venture to guess. I will say one thing which I'm not certain if it's been mentioned already - in the WTC attacks bits of the planes were recovered, from fuselage, tires, metal etc etc.

There are absolutely no coroborating photos of ANY plane parts or debris that can be traced back to a 747. There was a "comment" from an official apparently that there appeared to be a puddle of jet fuel and part of the nose end of the plane...oddly nothing shows up in photographs.

The site is: External link

As for passenger lists for a light 77 - is there one? Is it verified and proven by corroborating missing person's reports, obituaries, death certificates?

People died no doubt...but where exactly and how? If not a plane - what about the passenger list? Could that be fabricated? Did the real flight 77 get commandeered by the CIA and all of the passengers killed and buried elsewhere?

I mean - that is one thing that I don't understand about it. It does not appear that a plane hit the Pentagon...yet there is claim that a flight 77 went MIA - so wouldn't there be people missing and unaccounted for?

Anyway, the link is quite good and the pictures are very clear and self explanatory even without the site owners commentary. It raises some odd questions and it is unsettling.

My heart goes out to those families who lost loved ones!

Anyone mention the passenger list for flight 77? Has it been validated by family reports?




posted on May, 18 2006 @ 01:28 AM
link   
It's pretty obvious really, the interview is clearly a transcript of a recorded interview. What would be useful is a copy of the original to listen too, if it's available.
Even that sentence has an 'inaudible' statement in it as do 5 others, it's not unreasonable to suggest that the recording may have been of poor quality and hence poorly transcribed, the sentence makes little sense the way it is and it's obvious it should read:

"Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens as a missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center."

www.defenselink.mil...

'as a (eh)' sounds remarkably like 'and the', especially when your speed typing a transcript in real time listening to a tape.
For anyone getting upset that 'the military wouldn't have something on their site with mistakes' you'll note that 'filled' is spelt with one l even in that sentence.
Not to mention that it's highly unlikely for Rumsfeld to make a blunder like this, let alone leave it.
And don't try and tell me this incredibly powerful man who somehow arranged the whole of 9/11 using techniques that would make Spielberg green with envy was backed into a corner by a newspaper interview, just like Silverstein I suppose!



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 01:58 AM
link   
Anyone a math major?

1) How long is a 757?

2) At this frame rate, can we judge how fast the object is moving?

3) What is the distance between the right side of the frame and the Pentagon?

4) What is the minimum speed required to keep a 757 aloft?

5) Given the frame rates, shouldn't the tail be visible - taking speed, frame rate, object length, and distance from the right hand frame to the Pentagon - at one point?

6) Given the speed, frame rates, object length, and distance, couldn't we deduce if there are frames missing?

7) In the BBC video I saw, the commentator remarked that one of these cameras was only ten feet away. Why no concussive vibration? Debris?

8) According to a CNN report, there is one unreleased video shot by a hotel surveillance camera. This has not been released, nor will the government comment on its contents.

9) Is the direction of the explosion and shrapnel consistent with the size, angle, and speed of the object? Is there too much? Not enough?

These are just some preliminary questions; I have not decided what this object is.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 01:59 AM
link   
Anyone a math major?

1) How long is a 757?

2) At this frame rate, can we judge how fast the object is moving?

3) What is the distance between the right side of the frame and the Pentagon?

4) What is the minimum speed required to keep a 757 aloft?

5) Given the frame rates, shouldn't the tail be visible - taking speed, frame rate, object length, and distance from the right hand frame to the Pentagon - at one point?

6) Given the speed, frame rates, object length, and distance, couldn't we deduce if there are frames missing?

7) In the BBC video I saw, the commentator remarked that one of these cameras was only ten feet away. Why no concussive vibration? Debris?

8) According to a CNN report, there is one unreleased video shot by a hotel surveillance camera. This has not been released, nor will the government comment on its contents.

9) Is the direction of the explosion and shrapnel consistent with the size, angle, and speed of the object? Is there too much? Not enough?

These are just some preliminary questions; I have not decided what this object is.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dr_Faustus
7) In the BBC video I saw, the commentator remarked that one of these cameras was only ten feet away. Why no concussive vibration? Debris?


I think we can clearly see that neither video is anywhere near as 10 feet away. But incidently you do see debris in one of them land on the road.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 02:32 AM
link   
Someone asked if an image more to the correct scale than the inforwars GIf could be made, I knocked this together, it's not 100% accurate as I was in a rush but it's close enough to show what a gross exaggeration the 'joke' (disinformation) GIF floating around is:



Note how similar the alleged nose is to the image, also not how the object is too big to be a 'missile' as it's clearly 757 size.

[edit on 18-5-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arctaurus26us
Souljah and Dubiousone asked for explanations. Okay, I'll take the bait...

From Souljah:

Then please explain the following points to me:
External Source

911 in Plane Site
* Why were America and the world never shown the video and photographs of the Pentagon, BEFORE the outer wall had collapsed showing only one 16 ft. hole. Many people do not realize that the outer wall did not collapse until a full 20 minutes after the initial impact!

>> Not sure...but irrelevant to the case of "was it a plane?" The "beer can" crumpled. Fire a bullet into anything and watch physics at work. The bullet loses its shape and becomes a mass of metal. The airplane did the same. Speed caused the hunk of metal to burrow through the building. The same physical forces would apply to any object subjected to the similar circumstances.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arctaurus26us
* How does a Boeing 757, constructed from lightweight aluminum, penetrate over 9 ft. of steel reinforced concrete?

>> Speed and the nature of physics. See the previous response. Understand physics and you'll understand how wings exploded and disintegrated, how the fuselage became a bullet and due to physical forces was able to penetrate three brick walls.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by XB70

Originally posted by Not a Sheeple
Regarding the three buildings collapsing it is obvious you know absolutely nothing about construction, controlled demolition and the laws of physics.

Oh, I don't?
Perhaps you would be so generous as to englighten me with your expertise.

Wait. Do you have a degree in physics? Architecture? Engineering? Terminal ballistics?

Tell me then, how is it that a building in which one of the floors' support beams gave out could fall SIDEWAYS? WHY would it fall sideways? The Twin Towers were ENGINEERED to be able to sway back and forth without breaking or falling. They are flexible yet resistant to excessive bending. When they collapsed, the force of the wind up there was negligible compared to the downward force of the weight of the floors collapsing. So what could make them fall sideways?

And if that's not the reason you believe it was a controlled demolition, what was?


As you, I don't have a degree in physics, architecture, engineering or terminals ballistics. So, why don't you read Professor Stephen E. Jones' peer reviewed paper, Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse? He's got a PhD in physics and teaches at Brigham Young University.

Before you and other defenders of the official story start spouting nonsense, it's always a good idea to do some research.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Someone asked if an image more to the correct scale than the inforwars GIf could be made, I knocked this together, it's not 100% accurate as I was in a rush but it's close enough to show what a gross exaggeration the 'joke' (disinformation) GIF floating around is:



Note how similar the alleged nose is to the image, also not how the object is too big to be a 'missile' as it's clearly 757 size.

[edit on 18-5-2006 by AgentSmith]


AgentSmith, I may be seeing your picture wrongly, and if I am, I apologize in advance, but if you're going to be drawing a 77 ft vertical line so as to give scale, shouldn't it be in front of the nose of the aircraft? I'm not disputing what you claim but to me it seems as if your red line is way further in the background than where the nose of the plane you are transposing looks like it will impact.

edit to add: And if you claim that the right, not left, airplane does match the red vertical line to scale, well than you have an even bigger problem: the plane on the right, well the lower third of its fuselage is below the lawn!

[edit on 18/5/2006 by Aris]

edit again to add: to be precise, the lower third of its fuselage, along with the entire engine, is below your red line.

[edit on 18/5/2006 by Aris]



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 03:54 AM
link   
this is a question i wanted to ask , (not wanting to offend anyone)
if flight 77 hit this site um where are the bodies? were bodies recovered?
only reason im asking is that i havent seen it mentioned anywhere, maybe im just looking in the wrong places.

[edit on 18-5-2006 by ronishia]



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 04:03 AM
link   
Tell you what, the height of the Pentagon is consistent along that wing, correct? So, since depth perception and accuracy of such is highly dubious with such photographic evidence, why don't you draw a 77ft red vertical line much closer to the camera, all the way at the left, that goes from where the base of the wall begins in the shade and ends at the top. Then, superimpose only the tail right up against the wall, immediately to its right. That way we can see how big the tail is and how high it reaches the wall that is much nearer to the camera and thus clearer to perceive. The wall's height is, after all, the same, both near the camera and far away where the impact occured. And when you transpose the tail, make sure you give enough clearance for the engines to not be ploughing the lawn, as the lawn was intact and not burrowed. You can do this perhaps by inversing the transposed plane with its nose looking to the right. Sort of like parking a 757 with its tail to the wall near us, if you get what I'm saying.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ronishia
this is a question i wanted to ask , (not wanting to offend anyone)
if flight 77 hit this site um where are the bodies? were bodies recovered?
only reason im asking is that i havent seen it mentioned anywhere, maybe im just looking in the wrong places.

[edit on 18-5-2006 by ronishia]

Well if you're to believe the gov't and the defenders of its official line, 80 or so tons of aluminum, titanium and various other alloys up and disappeared but 98% of the passengers' DNA remained intact so as to be positively identified


So, from what I understand, no, there were no bodies (at least I haven't come across such a claim), but DNA withstood the impact and explosion while aluminum etc did not.

In the thread, "A 757 did hit the Pentagon", CatHerder's poor thesis had a quote from a firefighter, I think it was, that claimed that they pulled bodies out of the crash site, thus inferring that yes, there were bodies that were retrieved. The problem, though, was that when I followed his link and searched some more, no one, not even rescue personnel, ever claimed that they were passenger bodies.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 04:13 AM
link   
I haven't read all the posts yet, but in video two, you can clearly see a white object slice through the ground, leaving upturned dirt in its wake. I still can't tell whether it was a plane or not though...



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 04:17 AM
link   
but surly even after a crash like that some part of the bodies would have survived? hmm makes you wonder that IF this was some sort of craft and not a missle,that it would have been an unmaned one.

on another note related to this, does anyone belive that the terrorists actually had a hand in the pentagon fiasco, or do you think that this was strictly a goverment thing?
if you think the goverment did this then what would be the reason to do it?
what do you think they were trying to hide?



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aris
but 98% of the passengers' DNA remained intact so as to be positively identified


So, from what I understand, no, there were no bodies (at least I haven't come across such a claim), but DNA withstood the impact and explosion while aluminum etc did not.


Im not a scientist but I don't think there would have to be much of a body left to be able to match DNA from a piece of shredded bodyor bone to a strand of hair from a comb or skin samples.
They are still finding body parts on tops of roofs here in NYC 5 years later that were blocks away from the WTC.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 04:31 AM
link   
You only need a few small pieces to survive, considering you can get DNA from a human hair (in fact they used samples such as this donated by family members for ID) it's hardly amazing.

Here are a couple of pictures of bodies from the Pentagon,

**WARNING VERY GRAPHIC IMAGES**

www.rcfp.org...

www.rcfp.org...

[edit on 18-5-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aris
AgentSmith, I may be seeing your picture wrongly, and if I am, I apologize in advance, but if you're going to be drawing a 77 ft vertical line so as to give scale, shouldn't it be in front of the nose of the aircraft? I'm not disputing what you claim but to me it seems as if your red line is way further in the background than where the nose of the plane you are transposing looks like it will impact.


I based the impact position on the images of the explosions and the fire after, expecially considering the outer reaches of the fireball will have been where the wings impacted as they are the source of the fuel.





edit to add: And if you claim that the right, not left, airplane does match the red vertical line to scale, well than you have an even bigger problem: the plane on the right, well the lower third of its fuselage is below the lawn!


As I did say (thought I admit it was in the first thread I posted it in actually)



You'll have to excuse this, it's a rush job and I'm sure someone else can make a more accurate one


The main point of it was that the animated GIF that floats around with a 757 put in it is a gross exaggeration of what people expect. If someone wants to sit down and count pixels and get it perfect then be my guest. It was never meant to be any kind of conclusive proof in itself, merely a demonstration of the disinformation floating around from the truth seeker side.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 04:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ronishia
but surly even after a crash like that some part of the bodies would have survived?

Sure. What's even more sure is that most of the airplane would still be around, even as twisted, broken wreckage.



on another note related to this, does anyone belive that the terrorists actually had a hand in the pentagon fiasco, or do you think that this was strictly a goverment thing?

Inside job, perhaps permitted ("stand down") with patsies, perhaps not. Say, didn't half or so of the alleged 9/11 terrorists end up being alive & well in their countries after 9/11? Yep, they did.



if you think the goverment did this then what would be the reason to do it?

Read PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century".
Their site is at www.newamericancentury.org.... It says, among other niceties, that "The process of transformation (of the U.S. military into a force that has global "Full Spectrum Dominance") is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor."
This pulication is authored by the likes of guess who, Paul Wolfowitz, William Kristol, Fred & Robert Kagan, "Scooter" Libby", Elliot Abrams etc and PNAC has, amongst its members, good ol' boys like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Steve Forbes, Jeb Bush, Richard Perle, Peter Rodam, James Woolsey, Eliot Cohen, Richard Armitage, Caspar Weinberger, John Bolton etc.



what do you think they were trying to hide?

An orchestrated false flag operation. The US gov't is good at those things and has a long history of such crap.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aris
Tell you what, the height of the Pentagon is consistent along that wing, correct? So, since depth perception and accuracy of such is highly dubious with such photographic evidence, why don't you draw a 77ft red vertical line much closer to the camera, all the way at the left, that goes from where the base of the wall begins in the shade and ends at the top. Then, superimpose only the tail right up against the wall, immediately to its right.


Very rough, only 15 minute morning break, but here you go:




new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join