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: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by GwionX
Yes that IS a steep bank..But the guys accused of piloting these planes weren't exactly experienced airline pilots either.

Ok, I kinda suck at screen captures, and it seems that the stills lose a bit of (already bad) resolution, but check these stills out ..then rewatch the video on FULL SCREEN ( Btw: I am using a 19" LCD Monitor and can that it is a plane pretty clearly)

Still #1: The Tip of the Wing



Still #2: Wing and Tail (Banking plane)



Still #3 The Decent



Still #4 The tail is disappearing from view (worst still, more defined in the video)



I Hope this helps the researchers.












[edit on 17-2-2007 by GwionX]


The only problem is that if the plane was in that step of a bank the other wing would have been really digging into the ground and probly sheared off. But thier are no signs of a wing digging into the ground in front of the Pentagon or no sign of wing debris.




posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 02:06 PM
link   
The plane is not just on the other side of that overpass.. It is much farther away, and much higher off the ground than an overpass. The Top of the pentagon is 77 feet tall, and it is obscured by the CLOSER overpass.

The plane is clealy not being flown very stable, and probably would have clipped the wing on the ground had it not begun recovering from the bank when it did. What you see is really only the underside tip of the wing as it turns. Had you seen the whole underside of the wing..the plane would have been side-ways.



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by GwionX
Yes that IS a steep bank..But the guys accused of piloting these planes weren't exactly experienced airline pilots either.

Ok, I kinda suck at screen captures, and it seems that the stills lose a bit of (already bad) resolution, but check these stills out ..then rewatch the video on FULL SCREEN ( Btw: I am using a 19" LCD Monitor and can that it is a plane pretty clearly)

Still #1: The Tip of the Wing



Still #2: Wing and Tail (Banking plane)



Still #3 The Decent



Still #4 The tail is disappearing from view (worst still, more defined in the video)



I Hope this helps the researchers.












[edit on 17-2-2007 by GwionX]


The only problem is that if the plane was in that step of a bank the other wing would have been really digging into the ground and probly sheared off. But thier are no signs of a wing digging into the ground in front of the Pentagon or no sign of wing debris.


Ultima,

I usually don't disagree with you, but this post of yours is incorrect. What you pointed out is not the ONLY problem with this video.


As GwionX points out, the "plane" in this video would be very far from the camera. The wing tip of a 757 is only a few feet wide.

What this means is if the image that GwionX is claiming to be the wing tip actually were the wing tip, the wing would be about 50 feet wide at its tip.

Just think about the laws of perspective. Things appear smaller when they are far away. A 10-12 foot wing tip seen from a few hundred yards away would look like a speck, and would not be as wide as the vehicles in the foreground.



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Just so you can believe me , as if the video isn't enough....


I went and found an image of a 757 in a hard bank..NOW let me preface this by saying..the angle of the photo does not match up exactly with the angle of the Doubletree camera view..However, you can see by this illiustration that the image in the video fits the characteristics of a Boeing 757 -- that means, the distance from the wing to the tail-fin, the size of the wing-tip in coorelation to the tail-fin..and the size it would look if viewed from 800 yards away, roughly.. heck even the color shades on the plane match up. (in grayscale because the camera is black and white)

This picture is of a Brittish Airways Jet.. I used this picture because of the banking angle...I know what hit the pentagon was a US Airways flight.

Ok here ya go:

The original picture of the British air "Banking" plane --



The video still-shot without the plane--



The video still shot with the British Air 757 on scaled to the proper size. the nose is down a bit..but like i said the camera angles are not exact from both the video and the british air photo, but the characteristics are dead on.



US Air Color scheme -- silver wings -- darker tail-fin--




Link to the Video ..Watch it ..you will see.

www.youtube.com...



I hope this helps the researchers.















[edit on 18-2-2007 by GwionX]



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 05:02 PM
link   
just a question:
If the right wing was in that steep a bank would'nt the left wing
be almost scraping the ground therefore colliding with many more objects on its path to the face of the Pentagon or indeed causing the plane to become unstable and crash at that point?



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 05:13 PM
link   
Nope, the pentagon is 77 feet high...you cannot see the roofline of the pentagon because of the overpass, so we know the overpass is obstructing our view by NO LESS than 77 ft. near the pentagon...

But wow..It had to be close to stuff on the ground below..dangerously close.. I wish that stupid hijacker would have clipped the wing before hitting the Pentagon.. if so we would have seen a plane crash and the wreckage we are accustomed to seeing in a tragedy like this.

I really wish that those hijackers would have got into a single car accident BEFORE they got on the plane.

[edit on 18-2-2007 by GwionX]



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by GwionX
Just so you can believe me , as if the video isn't enough....


I went and found an image of a 757 in a hard bank..NOW let me preface this by saying..the angle of the photo does not match up exactly with the angle of the Doubletree camera view..However, you can see by this illiustration that the image in the video fits the characteristics of a Boeing 757 -- that means, the distance from the wing to the tail-fin, the size of the wing-tip in coorelation to the tail-fin..and the size it would look if viewed from 800 yards away, roughly.. heck even the color shades on the plane match up. (in grayscale because the camera is black and white)

This picture is of a Brittish Airways Jet.. I used this picture because of the banking angle...I know what hit the pentagon was a US Airways flight.

Ok here ya go:

The original picture of the British air "Banking" plane --



The video still-shot without the plane--



The video still shot with the British Air 757 on scaled to the proper size. the nose is down a bit..but like i said the camera angles are not exact from both the video and the british air photo, but the characteristics are dead on.



US Air Color scheme -- silver wings -- darker tail-fin--




Link to the Video ..Watch it ..you will see.

www.youtube.com...



I hope this helps the researchers.




[edit on 18-2-2007 by GwionX]


GwionX...

I think you've helped to uncover another fake video.

When you look at the photos of the 757, and the "right wing" in the video, how many feet away from the camera would you estimate the wing to be?

The reason this is important is because the tip of the wing can't be more than several feet across. Just guessing, I'd say the wing can't be more than 8 feet at the tip.

However, the video shows an image from ??? feet away that would not be to scale if it were the 757 wing.

Anybody have a link to the overhead map of the area? If you look at the dimensions, you'll see what I mean.

Do you have any comment on this?



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Yeah, I have a comment...You desparately desire for this to be untrue..for whatever reason..*Shrugs*

SO.. what you want to do is measure the very tippy-tip smallest measurement possible..so you don't have to be OBJECTIVE.

When in actuallity you should be thinking about the whole --Surface Area-- that comes into view and how much is even harder to see due to the grainy quality of the video.

Hell just look at the video...you can see it is a plane crashing into the Penatagon...100% of the people I have shown this to ..on my computer both at home and at work...A couple of them didn't believe the government story either...until they saw that Video.

Now you have to ask the question..if the Accounts regarding the Pentagon in "Conspiracy Classics" such as Loose Change, and In Plane Site are proven to be completely inaccurate...then just how many OTHER things were misrepresented in those flicks?



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 06:52 PM
link   
Even the CNN headline News reporter that anchored CNN while this video was released can be heard in the video saying that it does not show the plane...

If this actually showed the plane, why release it five years later, and very very quietly?

This got played on CNN ONCE!! Whereas when ONE EXTRA FRAME was released from the original parking lot footage, it got replayed and replayed numerous times claiming to be the definitive proof. They couldnt stop talking about it. But this video gets hardly any mention?

If this actually proved it was a plane, it would be all over the place and impossible to miss.

You guys claiming to see a plane must be smoking something.



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 07:54 PM
link   
Do you WANT me to start posting it all over the place?

I sure as SHite can!

But why would I ..I really don't like the Federal Government anyway.

Not because I believe ANY of the ridiculous lies of Dillion Avery, Alex Jones, or some BANNED BYU wimp and the multitude of other video spammers.


Oh as a side note: My neighbor rang my doorbell JUST NOW..she had all of my mail, important bills, and my netflix movies ect. Sometimes I get their mail too, and have to deliver it..Sometimes I get my other neighbors mail, and sometimes my other neighbor gets mine..RIDICULOUS! We have had the exact same mail man for two years-- my neighbors on the right side have even called and complained. I don't think it is a conspiracy.
It just a gubment employee, casually punchin-the clock.



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by GwionX
Yeah, I have a comment...You desparately desire for this to be untrue..for whatever reason..*Shrugs*


I don't think that people desperately want it to be untrue, it's just that the facts don't add up.

Can you comment specifically why the 911 commission report has flight 77 flying on the south side of the Navy Annex and the NTSB report, which supposedly got it's info from the black boxes, shows flight 77 flying on the north side of the Annex?

It's my understanding that the 5 light poles that were knocked down were on the south side of the Navy Annex and that the NTSB animation must be wrong then.

There is also the discrepency of the altitude of flight 77 on the NTSB animation. At 18,000 feet, the altimeter is adjusted by imputing the barometric pressure and temperature. This is supposed to done ascending and descending past 18,000 feet.

In the NTSB animation, you can see this adjustment being done when the plane climbs above 18,000 feet, but not when the plane drops below 18,000 feet. According to the NTSB animation, the adjustment was not done and the plane would have flown over the Pentagon.



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by nyarlathotep

Originally posted by GwionX
Yeah, I have a comment...You desparately desire for this to be untrue..for whatever reason..*Shrugs*


I don't think that people desperately want it to be untrue, it's just that the facts don't add up.


Dude, we are talking about wild events, we are talking about Chaos.. And you want it to add up like counting daisies on a warm windless day?

Look, Wierd #e happens! I know I *used* to be a cop, my now ex-wife was an EMT...Ask anyone that deals with disaster and they will tell you straight up..Some stuff just doesn't add up. I could go into detail ..but I will save that for some other time. Just gory cop stories.

Can you imagine the shear forces at work with these events? Huge towers crumbling, freaking Big-ass Jumbo Jets slamming into stuff.

And these jets aren't like trying to avoid a disaster, they are accelerating.

It is like when a train going full out hits a car....BLAM it disentigrates a bunch of stuff you wouldn't think it would.. leaves other stuff you think it wouldn't, this from the chaos of shear force. Now, when two cars crash and they are trying to AVOID it, or are braking at least...then everything is like counting daisies on a warm windless day.


Can you comment specifically why the 911 commission report has flight 77 flying on the south side of the Navy Annex and the NTSB report, which supposedly got it's info from the black boxes, shows flight 77 flying on the north side of the Annex?


Why would I want to? It is just goofy hopped up leaps of faith and contrived problems. I have seen the video of a plane hitting the Pentagon..I have even seen it bank just before it dives into the crash point..If you cannot see it, I suggest you get a better monitor. THE END.



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by GwionX
Yeah, I have a comment...You desparately desire for this to be untrue..for whatever reason..*Shrugs*


This has nothing to do with wanting anything. It's a matter of mathematics. The wing tip in the video is far too big for that distance.

I think you're self-projecting re the comments about desparately wanting something to be true.


SO.. what you want to do is measure the very tippy-tip smallest measurement possible..so you don't have to be OBJECTIVE.


Measuring the size of the "wing" in the video and calculating it's width based on the dimensions of the site IS objective.

Looking at a grainy white shape and deciding that you KNOW it's a wing is subjective, and wishful thinking.


When in actuallity you should be thinking about the whole --Surface Area-- that comes into view and how much is even harder to see due to the grainy quality of the video.


What does the surface area have to do with anything?

The frames that you posted show what you claim to be the wing tip of a 757. You're the one claiming it's a wing of a 757, and I pointed out that based on the distance the "plane" is from the camera, and the size of an actual wing, the image in the photo is disproportionately too large -by far.

And rather than verify this using basic math and a diagram of the site, you instead choose to attack my psychological motives or whatever the heck the comment about me desparately wanting to believe something to true was supposed to be about.


Hell just look at the video...you can see it is a plane crashing into the Penatagon...100% of the people I have shown this to ..on my computer both at home and at work...A couple of them didn't believe the government story either...until they saw that Video.


So because 100% of the people you've shown this to believe you... that proves something?? Did either of them measure the "wing" to see how big it would be if it was to scale based on how far away the photo was taken?


Now you have to ask the question..if the Accounts regarding the Pentagon in "Conspiracy Classics" such as Loose Change, and In Plane Site are proven to be completely inaccurate...then just how many OTHER things were misrepresented in those flicks?


What the hell does LC and other "Conspiracy Classics" have to do with anything? Speaking of "classics", this is a classic dodge that you repeatedly try to pass off as intelligent debate rather than address the point.

Which is:

Based on the distance the camera is from the "wing" in the photo, and based on the size of the wing tip of a 757, could the image shown in the photo possibly be a wing of a 757?

I didn't do the exact calculations yet, but as you said, the camera was very far from the "plane." An eight foot or even twelve foot wing tip at a couple of hundred yards would be a tiny blip on the screen.

Just look at the photo you posted of the 757. Notice how close the camera is to that 757, and how small the wing tip is. Now zoom out on that photo about 800% and you'll get an idea of how small the wing tip should look.

So if I can show you through simple math and geometry that the "wing" in the photo is way to big to be a 757, are you going to change your opinion or are you going to comment on my psychology and try to change the subject again?



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 10:55 PM
link   
After re-analyzing the video under CRYSTALI CRYSTAL BS VIEW, the same used by debunkers trying desperately to back up the OFFICIAL CONSPIRACY THEORY, i have come to some startling conclusions that MUST be seen!!!

I have shown my results to EVERYONE, and they all agree!! Even people that used to believe the official conspiracy theory have come to realize that its obviously a cruise missile after seeing my results!!!!!

In this clip, you can see a CRUISE MISSILE on its final approach of death to the pentagon!!!!




In this next startling clip, you can see the missile doing a back flip just because its tuesday and its such an impossible maneuver for a human to pull off!!! Its showboating!!!



Now, in this next clip, you can see a WHITE BLUR, that conclusively proves everything that i just said!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




And here you can see the red-orange missile exhaust, just like you see in the movies!!! So it must be true!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!





This post is protected under the FAIR USE ACT (section 107 of Copyright Act). This is intended for non-profit educational commentary.

Copyright 2007. All rights reserved!



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by nick7261

Originally posted by GwionX
Yeah, I have a comment...You desparately desire for this to be untrue..for whatever reason..*Shrugs*


This has nothing to do with wanting anything. It's a matter of mathematics. The wing tip in the video is far too big for that distance.

I think you're self-projecting re the comments about desparately wanting something to be true.


I already knew it was true. And you will too ..one day.


SO.. what you want to do is measure the very tippy-tip smallest measurement possible..so you don't have to be OBJECTIVE.



Measuring the size of the "wing" in the video and calculating it's width based on the dimensions of the site IS objective.

Looking at a grainy white shape and deciding that you KNOW it's a wing is subjective, and wishful thinking.


No, it follows what almost everyone in this country has been saying. It fits into Caustic's research ..it fits into the Official Story. If you watch the video closely and focus on the diagrams I have posted, you will see it. This is supported ...Unless there was another 757 that crashed into the pentagon that day..hmmm.. or this is all just yet ANOTHER government plot developing before your eyes.. Get Real.


When in actuallity you should be thinking about the whole --Surface Area-- that comes into view and how much is even harder to see due to the grainy quality of the video.



What does the surface area have to do with anything?

The frames that you posted show what you claim to be the wing tip of a 757. You're the one claiming it's a wing of a 757, and I pointed out that based on the distance the "plane" is from the camera, and the size of an actual wing, the image in the photo is disproportionately too large -by far.

And rather than verify this using basic math and a diagram of the site, you instead choose to attack my psychological motives or whatever the heck the comment about me desparately wanting to believe something to true was supposed to be about.


If I get the time..I will make you a cool little video, or sumpin, complete with a thumpin beat that you can groove to... And talk like I am Kevin Costner in JFK, I will post deep thought provoking questions in bright white letters on a black background....and in THIS "Quick Doc' I will tell only the truth.... it will be the first video of its kind.

Anyhoo... I don't really care if you believe me or not... I am just trying to contribute to the forums.



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by GwionX
Look, Wierd #e happens! I know I *used* to be a cop, my now ex-wife was an EMT...Ask anyone that deals with disaster and they will tell you straight up..Some stuff just doesn't add up. I could go into detail ..but I will save that for some other time. Just gory cop stories.



I was a Crew Chief in the Air Force so i have abackground in aviaiton, i am also a former federal police officer and have had training in emergency incident management. If you were a cop you should be able to do alot better research, also you should know that the crime scenes were not handled properly at any of the crash sites.

The FBI did not take over the crash site at the Pentagon and make it a crime scene for 10 days, and then after stating it would take a month the do the crime scene they handed it back over to the military in 5 days.

Maybe you can explain why after over 5 years we still do not have a FBI or NTSB incident report on any of the 911 crash scenes.



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by GwionX
Look, Wierd #e happens! I know I *used* to be a cop, my now ex-wife was an EMT...Ask anyone that deals with disaster and they will tell you straight up..Some stuff just doesn't add up. I could go into detail ..but I will save that for some other time. Just gory cop stories.



I was a Crew Chief in the Air Force so i have a background in aviaton, i am also a former federal police officer and have had training in emergency incident management. If you were a cop you should be able to do alot better research, also you should know that the crime scenes were not handled properly at any of the crash sites.

The FBI did not take over the crash site at the Pentagon and make it a crime scene for 10 days, and then after stating it would take a month the do the crime scene they handed it back over to the military in 5 days.

Maybe you can explain why after over 5 years we still do not have a FBI or NTSB incident report on any of the 911 crash scenes.



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by sp00n1
After re-analyzing the video under CRYSTALI CRYSTAL BS VIEW, the same used by debunkers trying desperately to back up the OFFICIAL CONSPIRACY THEORY, i have come to some startling conclusions that MUST be seen!!!


Sorry I wasn't trying to be a jerk.

Ok, you guys win! Hurray! You guys are the big winners!!

so what do we do now? Should we start stockpiling weapons? Getting organized? Perparing for the revolution?

Who is gonna lead us..oh, I know, I know...Alex jones! He is Perrrfect!

I never knew how liberating it could feel to be an exterme right-wing libertarian!

OK...you guys can stop with the pile on now..I am getting tired of this.



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by GwionX
Look, Wierd #e happens! I know I *used* to be a cop, my now ex-wife was an EMT...Ask anyone that deals with disaster and they will tell you straight up..Some stuff just doesn't add up. I could go into detail ..but I will save that for some other time. Just gory cop stories.



I was a Crew Chief in the Air Force so i have abackground in aviaiton, i am also a former federal police officer and have had training in emergency incident management. If you were a cop you should be able to do alot better research, also you should know that the crime scenes were not handled properly at any of the crash sites.

The FBI did not take over the crash site at the Pentagon and make it a crime scene for 10 days, and then after stating it would take a month the do the crime scene they handed it back over to the military in 5 days.

Maybe you can explain why after over 5 years we still do not have a FBI or NTSB incident report on any of the 911 crash scenes.


What have I been preaching since the very Second I got here? The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WAS INCOMPETENT AND COMPLACENT, THE BUREAUCRACIES CANNOT EFFECTIVELY COMMUNICATE WITH EACH OTHER.

And no offense but if you were a Federal officer, how could you deny my claims above? How could you suggest the ficticious explosives in WTC7 were placed AFTER the towers fell... OH NEVERMIND, YOU WORKED FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT..SHEEZE!

[edit on 18-2-2007 by GwionX]



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by GwionX
No, it follows what almost everyone in this country has been saying.


Huh?? What difference does it make what everybody in the country is saying?



It fits into Caustic's research ..it fits into the Official Story.


The video speaks for iteself. It doesn't have to fit into anybody's story.



If you watch the video closely and focus on the diagrams I have posted, you will see it. This is supported


I see something that looks like the wing tip of a plane. However, at the distance from the camera, it's too big. Look at your own image you posted on the first page of this thread. The camera looks to be about 2200 feet from where the plane would be. A photo of the wing from that distance would not appear as large as the object in the still frame of the video.



...Unless there was another 757 that crashed into the pentagon that day..hmmm.. or this is all just yet ANOTHER government plot developing before your eyes.. Get Real.


This video will not prove or disprove anything about a 757 hitting the pentagon. However, it may prove that somebody tampered with the video to make it look like it shows what the official story says is true.



If I get the time..I will make you a cool little video, or sumpin, complete with a thumpin beat that you can groove to... And talk like I am Kevin Costner in JFK, I will post deep thought provoking questions in bright white letters on a black background....and in THIS "Quick Doc' I will tell only the truth.... it will be the first video of its kind.


Rather than be condescending and change the subject again, why don't you just address the issue. At the distance the camera is from the flight path, the image of the wing tip looks far too large.

At 2000 feet, how big would a 757 wing tip appear? How much distance would be between the wing tip and the tail fin that you claim to see in the video?

The further away an object is, the smaller it appears. At 2000 feet how big should the wing tip look?



Anyhoo... I don't really care if you believe me or not... I am just trying to contribute to the forums.


I appreciate your contributions. I would suggest that it would be more of a contribution to consider what I've pointed out about this video and comment on the analysis of the video, and not just repeat over and over what you believe. We already know what you believe.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join