The 911 hit on the Pentagon ?

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal

Thanks for proving my point That "truthers" dont care about objective evidence that conflicts with fantasies So just what is "useless" about it Is one of only 3 images taken of AA11 impact on North Tower

Unlike you, I do not have a pet fetish about what truthers or OS believers care or fantasize about. Best to leave those abnormal obsessions to others.

The evidence you have supplied is as objective as you are. It may be best not to utilize words which you obviously have issues with.

Please don't thank me; you deserve all the credit for this one.

How ironic for you to comment on objectivity - considering you said this in an associated thread:

I enjoy looking at cartoons, photoshopped images, crappy low-res video frames and fictional witness accounts just as much as the next person, but this fabricated garbage would not even cut it as evidence in a Kangaroo Court

www.abovetopsecret.com...

A model of objectivity by anyone's standards...

Of course - when challenged to provide proof of "fictional witness accounts" - you just slinked away without comment. Is it any wonder why the Truthers have trouble being taken seriously when they have experts like you in their ranks?

Originally posted by CatJockey
To be fair, I am looking and have found about 20 eyewitness accounts ...

If it helps...

Here's one list: sites.google.com...

Here's another: whatreallyhappened.com...

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Yahm16
Better yet, why did the ONLY camera take 1 picture every 5 seconds?

Becuase these images were recorded to tape, and they use the 1:5 ratio to save storage on the tape. Otherwise, they'd be going through five times the number of tapes. Realistically, most things that would be attacking the Pentagon wouldn't have been travelling 500 mph so the 1:5 ratio is fine for getting the details of people, vehicles, and the like.

...and no, I'm not making this up. We used to record everything to tape in our own building until we started recording electronically and we used the 1:5 ratio ourselves.

Any pilot will tell you that no commercial plane could travel at 500 mph close enough to the ground to hit light poles. That's a cruising speed attainable only at an altitude of about 35,000 ft. Jet engines don't operate at full capacity under conditions of such high air density near the ground.
And perhaps one day when you open your eyes you will recognize the fact that the image of the plane indicated in some of the five frames initially leaked from the US government is that of a plane much smaller than a Boeing 757.

reply to post by micpsi


So you're saying that no plane has crashed into something (building, ground, ocean) at 500 mph? Do you have any pilots that survived doing that to support your theory -or just the one's who *weren't* trying to crash?

reply to post by doryinaz


This link right here: whatreallyhappened.com...

Originally posted by micpsi

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Yahm16
Better yet, why did the ONLY camera take 1 picture every 5 seconds?

Becuase these images were recorded to tape, and they use the 1:5 ratio to save storage on the tape. Otherwise, they'd be going through five times the number of tapes. Realistically, most things that would be attacking the Pentagon wouldn't have been travelling 500 mph so the 1:5 ratio is fine for getting the details of people, vehicles, and the like.

...and no, I'm not making this up. We used to record everything to tape in our own building until we started recording electronically and we used the 1:5 ratio ourselves.

and this link: 911review.com...
Any pilot will tell you that no commercial plane could travel at 500 mph close enough to the ground to hit light poles. That's a cruising speed attainable only at an altitude of about 35,000 ft. Jet engines don't operate at full capacity under conditions of such high air density near the ground.
And perhaps one day when you open your eyes you will recognize the fact that the image of the plane indicated in some of the five frames initially leaked from the US government is that of a plane much smaller than a Boeing 757.

reply to post by Boston0305



or this link: www.ratical.org...

reply to post by Boston0305



and this link: www.oilempire.us...

reply to post by Boston0305



and this link: www.911reality.com...



Look, all you fantasists out there, you really need to do just some quick research (I found all these links in a research that lasted less than 20 minutes, imagine if I had spent some real time on this subject!!!).

There is this new website, I don't know if you ever heard of it, but it's name is www.google.com. Now I know that not everything on the 'net is true, but if you spend just 10 minutes looking up some 'sites, you will find that there are commonalities among what is the truth, which give credit to some aspects of the subject you are researching.

There is also an old saying which one can append to just about any situation: "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is."

Fantasies are fun and nice (or in this case horrible) but that is all they are; Just Fantasies!!!

Originally posted by Haxsaw
come on use your head before you type such rubbish, there are mutliple reasons why the pentagon should be under 24hr surveillance with high-tech equipment(as it no doubt was at the time).

Can I ask you something? What "high tech equipment"? Do you have any idea what you are talking about or are you just pulling bull poop out of your rear end? What "high tech equipment"? The Pentagon is a military office building. "High tech equipment"? You mean Judy Woods' high-tech laser zap-o ray beam? Perhaps all those surface to air missiles that were supposed to shoot down any of the 50 or 60 planes that fly over or directly by the building daily.

"High tech equipment". Perhaps you can enlighten us plebeians as to what exactly the "high tech equipment" is that you so casually refer to.

Originally posted by micpsi


Any pilot will tell you that no commercial plane could travel at 500 mph close enough to the ground to hit light poles. That's a cruising speed attainable only at an altitude of about 35,000 ft. Jet engines don't operate at full capacity under conditions of such high air density near the ground.

Really? Where did you hear that from?