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.

 

Doubletree Hotel Video

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by sp00n1
You can see small cars traveling on the freeway that the plane had to fly over, but for some reason you dont see the huge effin jumbo jet flyin' over the freeway?????


Not only can you clearly the see the tail fin of the jet in the slowed down version of the video, but with the freeway in the foreground, you also get a great sense of scale from it. Doesn't look like a cruise missle to me.




posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 08:33 AM
link   
Damnit guys, I really reallywant to see a plane.
I wish I had your eyes.



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Wouldn't someone be able to request a FOIA on the videotapes the govt has in its posession...there is no longer an ongoing investigation of 9/11 so they shouldnt have a reason to keep them under wraps.



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by PartChimp

Not only can you clearly the see the tail fin of the jet in the slowed down version of the video, but with the freeway in the foreground, you also get a great sense of scale from it. Doesn't look like a cruise missle to me.


I think "clearly" is a bit of an overstatement, don't you?

My kids can "clearly" see lions and dragons in clouds when we drive down the highway too. I guess it all depends on what you're looking for.

Care to post a still photo from the video that "clearly" shows the tail fin?



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 12:26 PM
link   
I can see a shape, ( tail fin/not tail fin) that moves in the direction of the explosion, immediately before the explosion.

I then see what looks like a semi trailer passing on the highway......

The 'tail fin' shape did not seem to move across that space very much faster than the semi trailer shape did......but the plane was supposed to hit at full throttle, no?? Wouldn't that make the 'tail fin' obviously much faster?

Some one with some slightly sophistacated video equip shoud be able to deduct the speeds of the two shapes, whatever they are......at least that detail might be interesting.



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Why hi-jack 3 planes... but for the one that strikes the pentagon not use another plane but something else? I guess since the pentagon is the most secure building in the world that the anti-air missile batteries would have stopped what ever struck it if it was a plane... right. And then let's plant improper plane debree at the crash site.

I don't understand why you would want to complex a situation more than it has to be. I guess it's more interesting.



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by nick7261

I think "clearly" is a bit of an overstatement, don't you?

My kids can "clearly" see lions and dragons in clouds when we drive down the highway too. I guess it all depends on what you're looking for.

Care to post a still photo from the video that "clearly" shows the tail fin?


Well, obviously this argument of yours swings in two polar directions. I see something that catches the light in a way which the speeding cars on the off/on ramp do not; this anomalous object appears to be triangular in shape. Also, i don't have the time to sate your need for a still photo of the anomaly, nor do i obsess over this subject to the point where i feel i need to battle a conspiracy that rides on such weak, circumstantial wheels as it is.

On the other hand, could it not be possible that the powers that be insist on keeping pentagon videos under more of a tight grip because it was an attack on a military installation, not a public building? This is a little fact that people seem to forget, conveniently.



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 02:16 PM
link   
I just thought that maybe you had a link to a still photo of the video. Sorry for asking.

Also, the idea that the "powers that be" are withholding video evidence because the Pentagon is a military installation seems foolish, although not impossible. The only videos would show the outside of the Pentagon, which is fully visible to the public anyway.

What could they not want people to see? In fact, after seeing the videos that were withheld for so long, it's self-evident that there was no reason to withhold these videos.



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Foolish? No. Impossible? No. Improbable? More than likely, yes. More likely than the government holding back visual evidence of the tragedy because they flew a small aerial vehicle vacant of islamic fundamentalists and filled to the brim with explosives into the side of one of their most pridefully maintained public military bases in the country? Absolutely. Where are the people that boarded the flight that morning? What of the hundreds of witnesses that saw an airliner strike the building? Most importantly, as it was brought up earlier, if the government was in on it, why deviate from the plan and use a different method of striking from the methods used on the twin towers? Why not plant WMD's in Iraq to put the icing on the proverbial cake of such a seamlessly orchestrated, sadistic mass-butchering of Americans by our government? Are those foolish questions? They sure aren't. And I haven't seen them answered in a logical, unbiased manner by a "truth seeker" ever.



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by PartChimpWhere are the people that boarded the flight that morning?


I don't know, dead I guess. You see, once the genie was let out of the bottle re Project Northwoods, and the government's previous plan to fake hijackings, complete with planting debris and having fake funerals, the world of what might be possible expanded exponentially.

Apparently, in 1963 the Joint Chiefs of Staff thought it was reasonable to fake commercial airliners being hijacked, and they didn't care if they had real or simulated vitcims. I.e., they presented a plan to Kennedy to murder innocent civilians if needed to accomplish the objective of getting public support for invading Cuba.

Is that what happened re 9/11? I have no idea. The problem is that the government's handling of the investigation has been so shoddy that major questions re 9/11 still remain.

[qoute]What of the hundreds of witnesses that saw an airliner strike the building?

I think you're exaggerating. If you look at the witnesses, there were not hundreds that claim to actually have seen a plane hit the Pentagon. Even so, a plane hitting the Pentagon and Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon are not the same thing.


Most importantly, as it was brought up earlier, if the government was in on it, why deviate from the plan and use a different method of striking from the methods used on the twin towers?


Good point. I would imagine that if 9/11 were a government conspiracy, the plane that hit the Pentagon would be marked up to look just AA 77.


Why not plant WMD's in Iraq to put the icing on the proverbial cake of such a seamlessly orchestrated, sadistic mass-butchering of Americans by our government?


There was no need to plant WMD's in Iraq since the war was already authorized without evidence of WMDs.


Are those foolish questions? They sure aren't. And I haven't seen them answered in a logical, unbiased manner by a "truth seeker" ever.


No, they aren't foolish at all. What you have to keep in mind that just because people question the official explanations doesn't mean that they also have to have all the answers.

For example, I have no idea what happened the night O.J. Simpson's wife was murdered, but I know that O.J.'s story about accidentally cutting his own finger twice on the same night his wife was murdered didn't make sense.

Likewise, I have no idea what really happened on 9/11, but I know it doesn't make sense the not one, but two hijacked airliners cruised through U.S. airspace unimpeded for 1 hour after the U.S. already knew that 2 other hijacked airliners had hit the WTC.

Just as it doesn't make sense that WTC7 collapsed symmetrically at free-fall speed because of an initial vertical failure that led to a complete and simultaneous horizontal failure across the entire building.

Something about the official version of 9/11 doesn't add up. The average guy on the street wouldn't have the resources, and wouldn't even know where to start to investigate what really happened. But that doesn't change what happened. It is what it is. Just because we can't figure it out doesn't mean that the official version of 9/11 is accurate.



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 05:27 PM
link   
Hmmm...looks like ScepticOverlord decided to edit the op's post and then only show the "out of perspective" video.

Here is the link again. The first video is the actual footage from the camera without zooms and goof-up in flight paths NOT taking in account that there is an overpass between the camera and the distant Pentagon.

www.infowars.net...

Here is the airel photo of the hotel, its camera, the overpass and the Pentagon.



Look at the photo: I have marked the "Frontage Road" the "Overpasses", and the "camera angle." The upper red line is the impact path of flight 77.

As you can see, the frontage road is closest to the Camera. The vehicles on the frontage road appear larger (because they are closer) and also appear to be going faster (also because they are closer) The second layer of moving objects are the vehicles on the major thoroughfare.. the Overpass. These vehicles seem to be smaller (in fact, they are farther from the camera) they seem to be moving slower ( logic dictates that cars on an interstate do not go slower than cars on a frontage road)

BEYOND The ELEVATED OVERPASS you can see the tail fin of a jetliner ..a big tail fin moving very fast in correlation to where the camera is located..of course taking in consideration the plane is much farther away than the vehicles on the frontage road or the vehicles on the Highway Overpass.

An example of "distance disguising speed". Imagine youself on the front row of a NASCAR race...as the cars come speeding by you, you notice a jet in the air above you.. as you watch the aircraft just creeping across sky; the cars race by you again...

Which vehicle (the Aircraft or the NASCAR) is going faster? Of course you would be inclined to say the nascar...however, the Aircraft would be travelling MUCH faster although it looks to be moving slower. All due to distance disguising speed.

I challenge you to look closely at that video ..and you will realize an aircraft moving very fast with a large tail fin is crashing into the Pentagon.




[edit on 15-2-2007 by GwionX]



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by PartChimp
Where are the people that boarded the flight that morning?


Flight 175 = 767-222 = 65 on board
Flight 11 = 767-223 = 92 on board
Flight 77 = 757-223 = 64 on board
Flight 93 = 757-222 = 44 on board

Total people = 265

Flight 93's 757-222 can hold 289 people. Some odd reason, each flight on 9/11 was under booked, just enough to be able to fit them all in a single jet. Was that so they all can get transfered to Flight 93? My theory is, the people all got transfered to Flight 93, and shot down. If people were told to switch jets, I'm sure they wouldn't disagree, especialy if you lied and told them there was problems with the first jet they were on.


Originally posted by PartChimp
What of the hundreds of witnesses that saw an airliner strike the building?


Hundreds? Are you sure about that?? A LOT of witnessess said they saw a smaller private jet looking thing, with ZERO windows. Other people thought they even saw a helicopter. The only people who really said they saw a airliner were government officals in the area. Reporters even spiced up the story and claimed one guy said he saw "faces in the windows" which is near impossible at those speeds.

Please, show us your "hundreds of witnessess that saw an airliner strike".



Originally posted by PartChimp
Most importantly, as it was brought up earlier, if the government was in on it, why deviate from the plan and use a different method of striking from the methods used on the twin towers?


Why not? The Pentagon's wall that was hit on 911, had an armor upgrade before 911. Maybe they thought a normal passenger jet wouldn't do enough damamge to "give the illusion that the government didn't have a part in 911 by attacking their own base". So they used a faster jet, with weapons.



Originally posted by PartChimp
Why not plant WMD's in Iraq to put the icing on the proverbial cake of such a seamlessly orchestrated, sadistic mass-butchering of Americans by our government?


Last I checked, the Iraq war isn't over, and that is still a possibility. Maybe we will attack Iran and find some WMD's, and lie and say the WMD's were moved out of Iraq into Iran just before the US Military stepped on the doorstep.


Originally posted by PartChimp
Are those foolish questions? They sure aren't. And I haven't seen them answered in a logical, unbiased manner by a "truth seeker" ever.


You havnen't done enough reading or homework then. That's a true sign of a US Government follower.



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 06:28 PM
link   
That's a big lawn - after crossing the freeway, it tooke the plane another second to hit the building, so why do they only show a split-second before the blast? I'm guessing there's no plane visible there either or it'd be pointed out at Flight77.info (the same camera caught a helicopter headed that way fourteen minutes earlier.) I didn't see any tail fin, care to help me out w/that? And I'm a believer in the 757, I just can't see it here. It looks from a map of the area like that cam should not have seen the approach, being too far north. The plane would have been a ways to the right and crossed to center only after disappearing behind the freeway (pic found on Google, from a fellow ATS member)

- what I do think I see as a whisp of smoke rising just before the explosion. ??



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 06:49 PM
link   
Thanks for the larger pic.. I will place some camera indicators on this one for future reference.

You really cannot see a large white tail fin speed across the screen --right along the horizon of the highway overpass? Are you watching the *first* video of the link in my last post?

[edit on 15-2-2007 by GwionX]



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 07:18 PM
link   
I'm on the fence on this one, every argument I read which puts forward the possibility of a 757 hitting the Pentagon on 9/11 is counterbalanced by an equally good no-757 theory or presentation of the 'facts'.

One thing I would like to say is that isn't it amazing in this day and age
that five years (plus) on from September 11th, we, the public cannot ascertain whether or not an enormous commercial airliner flew into the face of one of the most secure and supposedly impregnable buildings in the world, conspiracy or no conspiracy, it is truly remarkable in my opinion.

I am not sure we will ever know for sure.



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 07:28 PM
link   
People are ridiculous nowaday's,just because they don't have video footage of something then they assume it's all made up conspiracy crap.

If it were a missle hundred's of people would of seen it and it would of been blown wide open.I find it ridiculous that people would think that educated military/public official's would even risk using a missle knowing that potentially hundred's of people would see it.

Seriously,even if it were orchestrated by the government would any of you in you're right mind use a frig'n missle?You'd get caught red handed.



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Big oops - I looked at the Citgo - no time to fix, gotta go to work. Catch y'all.



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Caustic,

I have examined the video you speak of from infowars and I think I can see what you are mentioning in your previous post.
It seems a white object moves very quickly from left to right in the direction of the pentagon at high speed and at the time of the explosion, almost seemingly along the highway in front, BUT while I concur there is an object I do not believe anyone could categorically state from that footage alone that that is the tailfin of Flight 77.
However it does need professional examination, I'm no camera expert but I am sure there are guys out there who could get a clearer or blown up image of what is in the frame. I am still undecided about it.



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Gwion, yes first video in the OP. I'll look closer tonight. I've been doing video analysis looking for the plane, so this fits in nicely. I'm good enough at trig as long as I'm looking at the right things
and now have another project for tonight



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 08:16 PM
link   
no matter what you believe, it is true that the official account is a lie.

they claimed no one ever imagined planes in an attack, but in July of 2001 Bush went to a G8 summit overseas, and security included anti aircraft batteries because of reports the hotel he was staying in was going to have an airplane flown into it, and so he had to stay on a boat.

the place he was staying on 9.10 had anti aircraft batteries on the roof, and snipers posted. Ashcroft quit flying commercial in July 2001 because of reports.

despite all this, people in WTC2 were never told to evacuate. they were told to return to their offices. if they knew what Bush knew to require anti aircraft batteries on his hotels roof on 9.10 they would very likely be alive today.

in the 93 WTC attacks, rooftop evacuations occurred, on 9/11/01 the roof was locked.

the 7 minutes in the classroom is remarkable... im not sure what it means but i think it was a photo op. its also possible he was there because they felt it was a coup and Bush was safe among the children (something they accused Saddam of doing, interesting enough). say what you will of Clinton, but i dont think he would have stayed there for 7 minutes... its remarkable and unexplainable.

Bush did not want an investigation into 911. he would not testify under oath to the 911 commission, and actually would not even talk to them alone: him and Cheney talked to the Commision at the same time. this is reason enough to not trust anything Bush's government has ever said about 911.

we still have no idea what happened on 911, its sad that private citizens have to do the research because the government will not do anything substantial.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join