New Pentagon Video footage

Originally posted by SPreston

That was later after the roof was collapsed with demolition charges, and after the FBI/SS agents, and the fake firefighters who were reported being there, got their act together and planted the aircraft debris. Here is one of them getting his act together in this shot.

Source please
Otherwise it's just conjecture
Thanks

Oh and no cheap Youtube videos of CG thanks again.

reply to post by s4dreamlnd93


some of you people are just down right asleep.. when there is no pics you want pics so instead of pics i put video now you want more.. well short of me going there and messuring it out myself on video .. maybe you should do some research on it your self please, move on if you cant take it

reply to post by donttaserme


that's not really evidence!
It's just something somebody made up for their Youtube CG video

accually if you look at the video its not all cgi only the part of the "plane" so maybe you should watch it again

www.youtube.com...

maybe this is more to your liking .. harrd to chew isnt it .. one day you might just open your eyes


oh yea one more thing .. if all this isnt "evidence" enough for the non believers then where is the proof that a plane hit it at all ? ive never seen a video or a picture or anything except what "they" say happened ..I never seen a plane hit it.. you never seen a plane hit it. so tell me why do you think it was a plane at all?

[edit on 03/06/09 by donttaserme]

The best time in the video to attempt to view any plane wreckage are the overhead shots of 4:30 and 4:50. Unfortunately, the 4:30 shot only lasts one second and the 4:50 shot pans to the side and zooms away, so you do not have time to get a good look at the debris. Of course, this camera motion and editing were not intentional.

It's been over seven years and this is the best video we have of the most well defended building in the world being attacked on 911? This one is a bit difficult to swallow.

Aside from the National Geographic students aboard Flight 77, a large majority of the remaining passengers had connections to the military or military defense contractors. It may be a "coincidence", but that seems like a rather high percentage of plane passengers with direct connections to one industry.

killtown.911review.org...

Also, the Washington Post stated that Flight 77 was "unusually light" on passengers (64) that day

www.washingtonpost.com...

On their own, these two observations prove nothing, but the chances of both instances happening on the same flight are not very probable. But then again, many things happened on that day which did not seem probable, from a mathematical statistical perspective anyway.

Originally posted by donttaserme
www.youtube.com...

maybe this is more to your liking .. harrd to chew isnt it .. one day you might just open your eyes

Nope not at all
OK so we have a slow motion crash of a crash tests that shows a plane not slamming into anything and some guy giving his opinion again he even states that it's his opinion.

reply to post by donttaserme



I think you should do some research yourself and not rely on YouTube for your information.

12 ft 4 in (3.7 m) is the Body Exterior Width of the cabin.

Link to source

2,13 m is the interior cabin height which comes to almost 6'10" add .2 meters for the actual bodywork.

Link to source

Even if that is an accurate reading of the hole, the cabin could more than easily fit into it.

[edit on 10-3-2009 by s4dreamlnd93]

reply to post by s4dreamlnd93

this isnt from youtube
www.janes.com...

Dimensions, External
Wing span 38.05 m (124 ft 10 in)
Wing chord: at root 8.20 m (26 ft 11 in)
at tip 1.73 m (5 ft 8 in)
Wing aspect ratio 7.8
Length: overall 47.32 m (155 ft 3 in)
fuselage 46.96 m (154 ft 10 in)
Height overall 13.56 m (44 ft 6 in)
Tailplane span 15.21 m (49 ft 11 in)
Wheel track 7.32 m (24 ft 0 in)
Wheelbase 18.29 m (60 ft 0 in)
Passenger doors (two, fwd, port):
Height 1.83 m (6 ft 0 in)
Width 0.84 m (2 ft 9 in)
Passenger door (rear, port): Height 1.83 m (6 ft 0 in)
Width 0.76 m (2 ft 6 in)
Service door (fwd, stbd): Height 1.65 m (5 ft 5 in)
Width 0.76 m (2 ft 6 in)
Service door (stbd, opposite second passenger door):
Height 1.83 m (6 ft 0 in)
Width 0.84 m (2 ft 9 in)
Service door (rear, stbd): Height 1.83 m (6 ft 0 in)
Width 0.76 m (2 ft 6 in)
Emergency exits (four, overwing):
Height 0.97 m (3 ft 2 in)
Width 0.51 m (1 ft 8 in)
Emergency exits, optional (two, aft of wings):
Height 1.32 m (4 ft 4 in)
Width 0.61 m (2 ft 0 in)

on a side note where is the proof that a plane hit it at all ?


Mod Edit: Use External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 3/10/2009 by Hal9000]

ok so the cabin fits in the whole .. wheres the rest of the plane ? i.e wings .. oh i know .. they must have just vanished before impact. yea thats my guess
good one

reply to post by donttaserme


www.zap16.com...

Cabin diameter: 3,54 m.
or roughly 11.6142 ft
yup that fits it and where exactly do you think planes store their fuel?






[edit on 10-3-2009 by SLAYER69]

reply to post by donttaserme


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/aac0393257f3.jpg[/atsimg]

A picture that you do not see much on Pentagon threads.

You can clearly see where the wing would go.

[edit on 10-3-2009 by s4dreamlnd93]

Some have asked where is the plane?

It is (or most of it) is inside the building

Notice aircraft debris outside







Then there is the debris pile at the C ring wall to A-B drive





Debris inside Pentagon

I think people see what they want to see, and then when they see what they don't want, they make excuses.

a) There is no debri, where is the debri?

b) Here is the debri, but the FBI planted it there.

Come on!

I think that there is overwelling evidence that at a bare minumum, the Government let 9/11 happen, or even was somehow involved. However, I haven't seen enough evidence to tell me with certainty who was ultimately responsible.

I have a hard time believing that these Muslim Extremists who learned to fly single engine sesnas were able to mannuver jumbo jets with the skill necessary to carry out the attacks.

I think its a cover story, but I do believe that air planes hit the WTC and the Pentagon. I don't know how they did it, I don't know who did it, but based on the stuff I have seen on this website and others, I am fairly confident that it was a plane that hit the pentagon.

Thats a great photo you got there s4....

What do you propose happened then when the plane hit those cable spools...they sure dont look too plane impacted to me.....the ones in front of your wing impact point...??

Same goes for the panes of airplane-proof glass which miraculously stood firm during The Attack .....you know, the ones above the wings, those pesky wabbit wings which vapourised upon impact with the spools....you can see the windows are still intact due to the fire retardant foam sprayed all over them...and the spools look untouched to me...

And dont forget....that jet fuel was soooo hot it melted all that steel at WTC1 and 2....

So does that mean that if WTC1 and 2 were made of Pentacon Grade Glass beams rather than steel, they would still be standing?

I can understand your confusion boys.....

I think theres a couple of people watching this thread who are masquerading as comedians .......if it wasnt so tragic, there comments would be laughable...

thanks again for a great photo mate....as you mentioned, you dont see that pic around much....

same goes for thedmans "the whole plane is inside the building via a hole less than 20ft wide" theory....

[edit on 12-3-2009 by benoni]

Originally posted by amazing
Nice post. the more footage for us to see the faster we'll get to the truth. How many videos are there total of the pentagon from that day? and how many have actually been released and is there a pentagon statement pertaining to why more footage hasn't been released?

If suddenly footage was released, after all this time, I would take it with a grain of salt. Too many years have passed, and I'm sure the CIA and their mates would have some pretty impressive CGI software.

reply to post by benoni


The windows are still there because they are made of BLAST RESISTANT
GLASS!!!

The Pentagon was being renovated - walls were reinforced with kevlar
liners and windows replaced by blast resistant glass as protection
againtst truck bombs.

Perhaps the best examples of retrofitting are on the West Coast, where skyscrapers and run-of-the mill buildings have been renovated to give them more sway to withstand earthquakes. In the war against terrorism, window glazing probably provides the most bang — or defense against the bang — for the buck. These coatings, which use materials such as polycarbonate laminates and thermally tempered glass, make windows resistant, though not impervious, to bullets, blasts and other forces. At the Pentagon, thick windows costing $10,000 each were surrounded by reinforced steel construction and fragment-and fire-resistant, Kevlar-like fabric between the walls.

Originally posted by benoni
Thats a great photo you got there s4....

Thank you.

Originally posted by benoni
What do you propose happened then when the plane hit those cable spools...they sure dont look too plane impacted to me.....the ones in front of your wing impact point...??

Have we any clear idea where those cable spools were before the attack? No we don't.

Originally posted by benoni
Same goes for the panes of airplane-proof glass which miraculously stood firm during The Attack .....you know, the ones above the wings, those pesky wabbit wings which vapourised upon impact with the spools....you can see the windows are still intact due to the fire retardant foam sprayed all over them...and the spools look untouched to me...

You have to be joking right? If it was a missile that hit there, there would be less of a chance of any windows being left. The glass is hardened to be protective as it is a military installation and as your cronies love to point out it was under renovation to make it more secure.

Originally posted by benoni
And dont forget....that jet fuel was soooo hot it melted all that steel at WTC1 and 2....

It did not melt it, it softened it.

Originally posted by benoni
So does that mean that if WTC1 and 2 were made of Pentacon Grade Glass beams rather than steel, they would still be standing?

I find this quote sickening.

Originally posted by benoni
I can understand your confusion boys.....

Judging by yours I am not surprised in the least.

Originally posted by benoni
I think theres a couple of people watching this thread who are masquerading as comedians .......if it wasnt so tragic, there comments would be laughable....

In that we have agreement.

Originally posted by benoni
thanks again for a great photo mate....as you mentioned, you dont see that pic around much....

Again, you are welcome.

Originally posted by benoni
same goes for thedmans "the whole plane is inside the building via a hole less than 20ft wide" theory....

..

You should watch the video that Slayer69 added.



[edit on 12-3-2009 by s4dreamlnd93]


Mod edit: Fixed quotes. You forgot to add the forward slash when closing a quote. [/quote]

[edit on 3/12/2009 by Hal9000]

Benoi

Refer to picture posted by S4

Note TWO (2) entry holes - one at 2nd floor and larger hole at ground
level.

2nd floor hole is about 16 ft in diameter - wide enough for the fuselage

1st floor hole is about 90 ft wide - wingspan of 757 is 125ft, now if
one accounts for that wingtips of aircraft are rather thin and fragile (strongest section of wing is from engine mounts to fuselage) and the damage inflicted by encounters with lampposts on road, and the cable spools, trailers and fence around the Pentagon construction area
Then the 757 would have penetrated into the building

Aircraft debris was clustered at the C ring wall including landing gear
struts, jet engine and the "black box" recorders

Also should consider that the 2 lowest floors of the Pentagon had NO
PARTITION WALLs from the outer exterior (E ring) to the C Ring - just
normal office type construction allowing the jet to smash its way through
building.

Well if you are truly believing the plane was swallowed completely by the Pentagon,i disagree because its ridiculous....

As for your airplane impactproof glazing.....give me a break..you know full well how dumb that is......

Not a crumb of debris.....nothing.....