Hotel CCTV Video of 9/11 Pentagon Explosion... And NO Plane!

page: 19
90
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by WoodSpirit
 


I meant the lamp posts that were hit by the plane, they are not shown in this footage but are clear as day in stills taken at the scene. You can split hairs and draw arrows all you want but this footage clearly shows a plane coming in from the distance and a split second later blows up. You seem to be getting pretty hysterical and that is a sign you know you are wrong. notice in the vid that I linked to the damage to the objects just before the wall, looks exactly like something hit it from the outside in towards the building. Why are you ignoring the plane parts scattered all over the place?




posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by WoodSpirit
 

Wasn't there eyewitnesses that claimed there
was a second plane that flew over the pentagon
right before the explosion?

If I remember correctly they said it was a
small white plane?Or was that Shanksville?

Imo our government is up to their necks in this.
We may never know exactly how it was done but I do know even I
would have put up a fight if I was threatened with just a boxcutter.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skywatcher2011

Originally posted by filosophia
The video seems to have captured the non-impacted side of the building, so maybe the plane is shielded by the building? It is hard to tell if it is a plane moving along or just traffic. My question is, if the video shows the wrong side of the building, why confiscate it? That is just fueling the conspiracy theories.

After taking another look, even if the video is filming the wrong wall, there is no way a huge jet couldn't be seen. Plus the video seems to be edited, the black car goes backwards after going forward. No trusting it after the feds got a hold of it.
edit on 26-11-2012 by filosophia because: (no reason given)


There was no plane wreckage discovered at the Pentagon dude...WAKE UP ALREADY!


here ya go some photo's.

www.911myths.com...



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Philippines
To transcend all of this, I find it very odd that anything was allowed to be that close to the pentagon and not shot down, especially since the first plane struck WTC 1 at 8:28 am, and then the pentagon was hit at 9:37 am, and then the FAA orders all aircraft to be grounded at 9:40am, after the last crash.


I would expect witness testimony to be jumbled. There have been multiple cases where people that watched an event (9/11 is a great example) and couldn't agree on what they saw. Here you have witnesses that after watching the events unfolding, and listening to the people on the planes, misremembered what they heard later. I have never heard a confirmed report (a flight attendant that called in) saying there were guns used. Pepper spray yes, what was probably a faked bomb yes, but no guns.

As for the plane being shot down that close to the Pentagon, shot down by what? The Pentagon doesn't have any defenses, and there weren't any armed fighters flying in the area that could have intercepted Flight 77 in time. There are hundreds of flights a day that fly right past the Pentagon, almost going over it, on their way into Reagan National, so automatic defenses are a bad thing.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


I am not ignoring plane parts, there were parts of a plane there, like in NY, but the footage was faked, that is sure.

I am not hysterical at all, and the accusation is laughable, many will agree.

You are ignoring that it has been pointed out that the object can't be the alleged plane following its alleged path.

The fact that you only see "some arrows" indicates that you are not able to grasp the situation that is being presented.


Just a quick example, in the simulation of the official flight path we can see that the alleged plane's tail is never higher than the Pentagon itself, in the last part of the approach.

The Pentagon is not high enough to be visible in the vid, then how can the plane's tail be visible in the vid?

edit on 28-11-2012 by WoodSpirit because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by TWILITE22
 


That was Shanksville. There was a C-130 that overflew both the Pentagon, and Shanksville, as well as an E-4B that launched out of Andrews and was seen near the Pentagon. The C-130 crew saw Flight 77 pass near them, and then saw just after impact, and didn't see anything flying away. Only one supposed witness ever came forward and said he saw Flight 77 pull up and fly over the building.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by TWILITE22
reply to post by WoodSpirit
 

Wasn't there eyewitnesses that claimed there
was a second plane that flew over the pentagon
right before the explosion?

If I remember correctly they said it was a
small white plane?Or was that Shanksville?

Imo our government is up to their necks in this.
We may never know exactly how it was done but I do know even I
would have put up a fight if I was threatened with just a boxcutter.





That was Officer Roosevelt and he stated a plane flew over after the explosion. If you listen to his interview you can tell he does not know the terms or differences in a turbo-prop and a turbine/jet aircraft. He apparently exaggerated and stated the plane flew over just seconds after the explosion since no one else saw this mystery "commercial airliner." A C-130 did fly low and this is probably what he saw.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by WoodSpirit
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


This is the vid I posted,



It was pretty clear by my description that I wasn't talking about the Doubletree vid, and I only posted screenshots of that vid.

Stay alert navydoc.
edit on 28-11-2012 by WoodSpirit because: (no reason given)


Oh, that's the evidence you are relying on? An amature documentary?



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


I smelled you from a mile away.

Now I'm sure.

Bye navydoc.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by karen61560
 


I'm on the fence, sorry if that offends you. Someone killed my brother while he was on holiday and I believe there was a cover up by the witnesses and the local police department. I can't prove it but that doesn't mean it's not true.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by WoodSpirit
 


I meant the lamp posts that were hit by the plane, they are not shown in this footage but are clear as day in stills taken at the scene. You can split hairs and draw arrows all you want but this footage clearly shows a plane coming in from the distance and a split second later blows up. You seem to be getting pretty hysterical and that is a sign you know you are wrong. notice in the vid that I linked to the damage to the objects just before the wall, looks exactly like something hit it from the outside in towards the building. Why are you ignoring the plane parts scattered all over the place?


Ok where is the plane in this screenshot?



It should be flying there somewhere in the left side of the screen, but no plane, but suddenly a few frames later, so a fraction of a second, tadaa, a "plane",



How do you explain that? The white smudge is the plane right? Why is it not in the previous frames?

And why is it even visible, the alleged plane's official flight path was much lower and the overpass would've obscured it at that spot.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by WoodSpirit
 


In the interest of covering all bases I did today decide to watch about 25 minutes or so of the video you have been posting and ranting about. I am not convinced.

The video is basically some dude going on about real time video compositing at an extremely complex level to show that a plane did not hit the south tower. Based on this video this guy seems to be saying you can pretty much fake anything with real time video compositing then gets very geeky about some interesting photography stuff. His argument is essentially that because it is possible to fake the real time videos then its proof that the whole thing was faked and there were no planes. My issue is that just because it is possible does not mean that it actually happened and the main issues he raises, “Pinocchio’s noes “can be explained.

. Also I don’t really see why if they were to fake the footage then why would they not just delays the live feed so that they could make the edit’s that they required. Then what about all the people who are in the videos taken on the ground of people seeing the second tower it, what are they all extra’s in your strange Hollywood movie of 9/11. Your theory would also require every major news network to be in on the conspiracy at every level.

In addition to this this video only (as far as I watched) talks about the south tower and is based only on video images. He does nothing to explain for example the multiple eye witnesses who all say they say a plane or at the very least a flying object. I would like to include amounts these eye witnesses my own relatives who saw the second plane hit the tower. It also does not address the issue of the phone calls and the passengers of the planes and all the evidence there had been hijackings, such as evidence from the FAA and NORAD. In short your video proves nothing and has nothing to do with events at the pentagon on which this thread is based.

It seems to me that you have a strong confirmation bias and an inability to admit when you are defeated or merely misinformed. If you cannot see the stupidity in basing all your believes regarding 9/11 on a highly questionable 45 minute video then all hope for your ignorance is lost. The “no planes” conspiracy of 9/11 is right up there with the “shape-shifting reptilian” theory, the “Galactic Federation of light” and the “KFC makes black men impotent” theory in terms of utter rubbish and I cannot take anyone seriously in a debate regarding 9/11 if they cannot at the very least accept that something hit those towers.

I am not going to waste my time trying to help you, you are the one who is being consumed by ignorance based on a 45 minute video, it’s makes no odds to me if you chose to believe such nonsense. I would ask respectfully however that if you ever want to engage in meaningful debate regarding 9/11 you go and do some more research regarding the planes because until then you are quite simply a joke as I cannot take what you have to say seriously.
edit on 28-11-2012 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   
I don't understand what all the hype is about! When something is confiscated it is done so for the means to hide something! None of the videos that hit the towers were confiscated that i know of! So if all the vids of the pentagon were taken there must be something in those vids that TPTB don't want us to see! Whether it's a cruise missle or nothing at all is moot because it's obvious that the events of 911 were a prequil to many things!
there is no denying that 911 was a FFA whether it's provable no longer seems to matter! Those behind this massacre are guilty as hell just by the way the evidence was hidden, the investigation was covered up, monies have been used to placate the victims families and hundreds of other sinister ties to the real terrorist behind these events! There is just no evidence that will convince those that are just unwilling to believe the big picture!
That people run the world and we don't matter to those people! When i try to discuss 911 the standard answer no matter how much I show these people is "I'm not willing to believe that" ! Even before 911 I would think anything is possible but there are those that are UNWILLING to believe and this will not change no matter how much they see!



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 





The video is basically some dude going on about real time video compositing at an extremely complex level to show that a plane did not hit the south tower. Based on this video this guy seems to be saying you can pretty much fake anything with real time video compositing then gets very geeky about some interesting photography stuff. His argument is essentially that because it is possible to fake the real time videos then its proof that the whole thing was faked and there were no planes. My issue is that just because it is possible does not mean that it actually happened and the main issues he raises, “Pinocchio’s noes “can be explained.


Interesting summary.

He actually presents the footage and explains why it cannot corroborate with reality and explains it and proves it very well, apart from the obvious fakes we can all see with our own eyes right away, "ghostplane" and such.

They are not based in reality, it doesn't even matter what he says, the footage, and inconsistencies between different 911 vids are proof itself.

Explain the nose, Pinocchio, I'd like to hear it.




In addition to this this video only (as far as I watched) talks about the south tower and is based only on video images. He does nothing to explain for example the multiple eye witnesses who all say they say a plane or at the very least a flying object. I would like to include amounts these eye witnesses my own relatives who saw the second plane hit the tower. It also does not address the issue of the phone calls and the passengers of the planes and all the evidence there had been hijackings, such as evidence from the FAA and NORAD. In short your video proves nothing and has nothing to do with events at the pentagon on which this thread is based.


The vid is about tv fakery, simple as that. No eyewitness accounts are needed to validate it existence.




In short your video proves nothing and has nothing to do with events at the pentagon on which this thread is based.


I am also discussing the op vid, and I never said this vid was about the pentagon, and it is on topic regarding no planes, so....




It seems to me that you have a strong confirmation bias and an inability to admit when you are defeated or merely misinformed. If you cannot see the stupidity in basing all your believes regarding 9/11 on a highly questionable 45 minute video then all hope for your ignorance is lost. The “no planes” conspiracy of 9/11 is right up there with the “shape-shifting reptilian” theory, the “Galactic Federation of light” and the “KFC makes black men impotent” theory in terms of utter rubbish and I cannot take anyone seriously in a debate regarding 9/11 if they cannot at the very least accept that something hit those towers.


The only defeated ones are the ones that have seen the vid I was talking about and are still replying to me with every mandatory bit of psychological damage control.




I am not going to waste my time trying to help you, you are the one who is being consumed by ignorance based on a 45 minute video, it’s makes no odds to me if you chose to believe such nonsense. I would ask respectfully however that if you ever want to engage in meaningful debate regarding 9/11 you go and do some more research regarding the planes because until then you are quite simply a joke as I cannot take what you have to say seriously.


I don't recall asking for your help?

Meanwhile, the footage still speaks for itself, it's fake.
edit on 28-11-2012 by WoodSpirit because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by WoodSpirit
 


Sorry you probably haven’t read my edit but some key things to remember other than what he has said other than faking TV feeds which is not enough alone so can you explain the following

• All videos have to be proved beyond doubt that they are fakes; so far none have been proven beyond doubt to be fakes.
• How do you explain eye witnesses, such as my relatives who have said time and time again that they saw a plane hit the second tower?
• What about videos that show other people watching as planes hit, how do you explain that are they all extra’s.
• How is it possible for every media organisation to be in on this, even the news anchors would have to be in on it at some level and all of the production team.
• Why if the footage of the planes is fake not just have a delayed live feed other than the immense complexity that goes along with real time video compositing, the extra work and huge risk just is not worth it. If they did want to fake it they could have done it much easier.
• How to you explain away the likes of the FAA and NORAD accounts of activates in the sky that day
• How do you explain the physical evidence of a plane such as wreckage at the site of flight 93 and the pentagon
• If faked then what actually happened to those flights

I could go on like this all day, and like I said I am not going to engage you in any active debate until you stop with this no planes nonsense or can provide a very strong argument to back up your no planes theory. To do that you must address all of the above questions.
edit on 28-11-2012 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by WoodSpirit
 


How about we make things simpler, if you are arguing that there were no planes then can you tell me what my relatives saw that day they have told me they saw a plane. If you can explain away what they claim to have seen and what all the other eye witnesses have claimed to see then I might start to understand this “no planes” theory a bit more.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 





Sorry you probably haven’t read my edit but some key things to remember other than what he has said other than faking TV feeds which is not enough alone so can you explain the following


Way ahead of you.




• All videos have to be proved beyond doubt that they are fakes; so far none have been proven beyond doubt to be fakes.


Well, what the footage shows cannot be real, and different vids of the same event, don't show the same thing. The conclusion is inescapable.




• How do you explain eye witnesses, such as my relatives who have said time and time again that they saw a plane hit the second tower? • What about videos that show other people watching as planes hit, how do you explain that are they all extra’s. • How is it possible for every media organisation to be in on this, even the news anchors would have to be in on it at some level and all of the production team. • Why if the footage of the planes is fake not just have a delayed live feed other than the immense complexity that goes along with real time video compositing, the extra work and huge risk just is not worth it. If they did want to fake it they could have done it much easier. • How to you explain away the likes of the FAA and NORAD accounts of activates in the sky that day • How do you explain the physical evidence of a plane such as wreckage at the site of flight 93 and the pentagon • If faked then what actually happened to those flights I could go on like this all day, and like I said I am not going to engage you in any active debate until you stop with this no planes nonsense or can provide a very strong argument to back up your no planes theory. To do that you must address all of the above questions


I don't have to do squat.

This is a no plane thread, and I'm talking about no planes, and the footage proves it. That's all I'm claiming.

The points that you bring up don't change the fact that the footage is faked.

edit on 28-11-2012 by WoodSpirit because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by WoodSpirit
 


How about we make things simpler, if you are arguing that there were no planes then can you tell me what my relatives saw that day they have told me they saw a plane. If you can explain away what they claim to have seen and what all the other eye witnesses have claimed to see then I might start to understand this “no planes” theory a bit more.


You have no relatives that saw a plane.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by WoodSpirit
 


Not good enough, if you are going to take that very immature attitude then you are clearly not mature enough to have a grown up debate about this, it leads me to wonder if you are even old enough to have watched that live footage for yourself on that day.

If your only argument is to claim that I am lying then that is not good enough, it just makes you look really daft. You cannot try to have a grown up debate if you are unwilling to address issues raised to you.

I watched some of your video so that I could engage you in some kind of debate, now it is up to you if you want to take part in that debate.

So I will ask you again

On 9/11/01 my relative has told me that she and her husband saw a plane hit the second tower, if there was no plane then what did they see.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 



In the case of the Pentagon, I would say missile, but the WTC towers, I believe were not hit by any projectile, but I am still open to the possibility of a missile too, but I don't think so.

I don't know what they saw if they saw something. are you sure they didn't just see a fireball?

It wasn't a plane anyways.

And my point was that I can also have an uncle that didn't see a plane hit, just an explosion.

See how easy that is.

edit on 28-11-2012 by WoodSpirit because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
90
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join