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: 5
6
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by GwionX
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]


So what your saying is that 19 people with very little training and experience beat all our aviation security measures and NORAD. Gee if our government is that bad we are in very big trouble.

Who said explosives were used, thier are several ways to bring down a building. Specailly one that has structural damage and the floors gutted by fire would be easy to bring down without explosives.

But i guess we can wait and see the demolition companies use the building 7 collapse as a way to bring down buildings, you just cause some structural damage to 1 side and set the floors on fire and the buidling will fall straight down. That will save the demolition companies a lot of time and money.




posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 05:42 AM
link   
I'm kinda surprised that people are even debating this video..but to use it as evidence for a plane...come on.

You guys are fighting about a speck of pixels that appears for about a second, on a low speed security camera.

Those cars are not traveling nearly as fast as a plane would be and they are still "jumping or skipping" quite largely due to the low frame rate.

My only comment is that if this was ufo video and someone was trying to prove that that little thing you see is a flying object...this thread would have no replies.

I don't have the time right now but if you take the speed of the cars on that road and the distance they "skip" you can multiply that speed to reach the average speed of an airplane and it would give a sort of estimation to how much distance a plane would "skip" due to the low frame rate.

I know it's not easy to do since the cars are not traveling towards the pentagon..but it might be a way to judge if a object moving that fast would even show up on such a low speed camera.

Imagine trying to watch a boxing match on a webcam...you might see who fell down...but you wont see if he was hit with an uppercut or if a beer bottle was flung from the audience and hit him in the head.

It makes we wonder why they even took these videos and held them in the first place.



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 06:23 AM
link   
Ohh my god this has gotten silly. (in ref to everything up to the previous post). And good try Nick. Thot I should just say guys, I'm completely done with this case. On the record and waaaaay outta here. Spoon, you got it sewn up there. It's a missile after all and I'm back to square one.


[edit on 19-2-2007 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by GwionX

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.



If you think that the clips from the hotel is proof of a plane hitting the Pentagon, I have a bridge that I would like to sell you. Those stills you provided show ABSOLUTELY nothing!

Doesn't it bother you that the NTSB and 911 Commission reports conflict each other?



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by GwionX


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.



The video clips you are showing are not the plane. Why don't you try looking at the same clips with the time stamp included.

The first time the "wing tip" appears is at 9:34:03 on the video. Here is a still with the time stamp and "wing tip" visible.





The second still shows what you think is the larger version of the wing. Here iit is with the time stamp showing 9:34:05






At 9:34:06 the "wing" isn't in the shot. By 9:34:10 there is no still no explosion or "wing" in the video.

Here are the stills to show this:









Then at 9:34:11 you see the fireball.






So here's what this means...

A plane traveling 400 mph is moving at about 600 feet per second. In the two seconds between the images that you think show the approach of Flight 77, the plane would have moved about 1200 feet. However, from the time Flight 77 would have entered the field of view of the Doubletree camera, it would have been less than 1000 feet from the Pentagon.

From the time of the 2nd still showing the larger image of what you think is the wing until the fireball, 7 seconds go by. In 7 seconds, the plane would have travelled nearly 1 mile, not a few hundred feet into the Pentagon.

Here's an overhead shot of the area from Google Maps with the scale shown in the lower left corner:







This shows that the Doubletree Hotel video unequivocally does NOT show Flight 77 approaching the Pentagon.

Why don't you show these pictures to all your friends who believed you when you convinced them that the video showed the final approach of Flight 77 into the Pentagon.

Let us know what they say.

Here's a new thread with an alternative explanation:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 19-2-2007 by nick7261]



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Yeah, its just a truck's air dam. You can calculate the speed and follow it behind tree's, and watch it come out the other side....

watch this video..

media.putfile.com...



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Damn straight connected, i couldnt have done a better job myself. The Official Conspiracy Theory Folk will just try to claims it some sort of optical illusion pulled off by Al qaeda just to support the CT's....



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Yeah.. lol..

heres the YouTube one, it loads faster.




posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by GwionX
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.


GwionX.... are you ok?

Have you shown your friends at home and at work the new analysis of the video where it's pretty clear that the white thing isn't the wing of a plane?

Just wondering what they thing now...




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?


Now you have to ask the question... if the government fought releasing the Doubletree video for 5 years, and the video shows no evidence of a plane, why did the government fight the release of the video?



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Connected
Yeah, its just a truck's air dam. You can calculate the speed and follow it behind tree's, and watch it come out the other side....

watch this video..

media.putfile.com...


Thank you connected. That was kind of fun. I hadn't seen either the video or the stills until this thread. I couldn't understand what the fuss was about. Why anyone would trust a video that had been suppressed for years by a military establishment with far more technical ability than mere photoshop? What it would prove to show a blurry thing that might be taken out of context as a wing? Why a simple explanation of "govt is incompetent" should invalidate building 7 physics or circumstantial evidence? That was nice the way it built up to the shrill "I used to be a cop" followed by the video where it seems quite clear. I would like to think that if I showed it to a bunch of my friends, none would see a plane.

I usually think coverups fall into two categories. Covering up an actual crime even if it's not the obvious one. Or merely a distraction. I generally assume the latter until I have some proof of the former. While the post is certainly used to distract (I would say it was entertaining even), it actually seems to add more evidence to a coverup of a crime.

Thanks for doing the math and getting the map. I thought about giving it a go until I saw your post. Nicely done.

Cheers



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by thx1137

I usually think coverups fall into two categories. Covering up an actual crime even if it's not the obvious one. Or merely a distraction. I generally assume the latter until I have some proof of the former. While the post is certainly used to distract (I would say it was entertaining even), it actually seems to add more evidence to a coverup of a crime.


Welcome to the thread, Tex, and I fully support this approach which seems to me common sense. But you'd be surprised how many people will jump on anything to support their theory even when it clearly doesn't. Some are just naiive or silly. Others are professional self-discreditors. It's hard to tell them apart.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join