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

reply to post by WoodSpirit

are you saying that is the missile? if not then what are you saying it is?

reply to post by bottleslingguy


it could possibly be a missile, but again the trajectory would not make sense, and it still has the issue of suddenly appearing and not being in the previous frames, so I am leaning towards the theory that the smudge was shopped in before the FBi released the vid, in order to make it look as if there was at least something flying there.

When I do an extreme close up the smudge actually overlaps the background of the overpass, like it is in front of it, it looks shopped.

Then again,maybe it is caused by something tottally unrelated.

It is not the plane, I'll tell you that.

Originally posted by WoodSpirit
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?

the simulation video matches everything perfectly and explains how and why we see what we see right down to the corner of the shot partially blocked by the toll booth thingy in the foreground where you can see the vapor trail from the damaged engine that hit the light pole. I don't have a problem thinking how this could have been a machurian candidate style attack perpetrated by the cia but I have to go with reason here as to what actually happened. I don't see any reason to believe planes didn't actually hit the targets. Were the pilots brainwashed by the cia? what does it matter whether you blame the cia or their religious beliefs? But to say there were holograms and pre-installed thermite and controlled demo and missiles and all this other bunch of nonsense I just don't get why this has to get THAT complicated.

reply to post by bottleslingguy

the simulation video matches everything perfectly and explains how and why we see what we see right down to the corner of the shot partially blocked by the toll booth thingy in the foreground where you can see the vapor trail from the damaged engine that hit the light pole.

Just keep ignoring the reasons why it doesn't match up. I just repeated it again.

-The official flight path is too low to make the plane or the tail visible from that camera
-The smudge appears out of nowhere and is not in previous frames.
-The smudge overlaps the background of the overpass and looks shopped.

I don't have a problem thinking how this could have been a machurian candidate style attack perpetrated by the cia but I have to go with reason here as to what actually happened. I don't see any reason to believe planes didn't actually hit the targets. Were the pilots brainwashed by the cia? what does it matter whether you blame the cia or their religious beliefs? But to say there were holograms and pre-installed thermite and controlled demo and missiles and all this other bunch of nonsense I just don't get why this has to get THAT complicated.

I think it matters a lot if CIA did it or al qaida, are you kidding me? And I never mentioned holograms.

Also, what do you believe in then? You don't believe controlled demolition and you believe planes flew into the buildings, in short, you don't believe in a conspiracy at all. So what are you talking about?

Originally posted by WoodSpirit

It is not the plane, I'll tell you that.

so I get the ole argument from authority? is that your argument? "it is not a plane because I don't want it to be a plane so badly I will claim it is photoshopped"? is that your claim? I'm sorry but this footage totally wrecks the "missile theorists'" whole story. There is no way a tiny little missile is going to make that much of a reflection which is what you are looking at. You keep saying the trajectory is wrong so why don't you prove that by making some diagrams for us? I love to look at stuff like that although I haven't the ability (read: too lazy to learn) to put them together myself or else I would be doing it all the time. I love how that simulation video lined everything up perfectly. It made absolute sense and fit all the forensic evidence to the tee. maybe just before impact the plane rose slightly and the reflection we see is the apex just a split second before it hit the light poles. this is great footage and matches the corroborating simulation perfectly

reply to post by bottleslingguy

There is no way a tiny little missile is going to make that much of a reflection which is what you are looking at.

I never said that the smudge was a missile, I said it most probably wasn't a missile, and only because you asked about it.

Furthermore, I already made a post where I explained the situation, I'll repost it.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

Maybe the missle that hit the twin towers was fired from a ufo in deep space? They guided the missle telepathically, while at the same time hiding it in a hollogram? But where did the sound come from then? Maybe someone had loudspeakers attached to their windows that was broadcasting in 360d surround. But the cordination effor was awesome. Maybe they rehearsed everything telepathically in a remote viewing session days before?

And then just maybe they faked all the live video’s so it looked like their missile was a plane.

Claiming all the footage was faked is preposterous. These people relly solely on the demolition theory to prove 9-11 was an inside job, and guess what, nothing, nada, will ever get proven...because a puzzle has hundreds of pieces not just one.

I can accept that the footage was tampered with, frames edited(fake added, real deleted) so that people misindentify what they saw, which helps the original story. But all fake? No way! I feel the "live footage" was aired with a significant delay so that the edits could be made. Too many people saw planes hitting the twin towers and people said "no windows, blue logo" repeatedly. It seems no one cares about the truth enough.

As for the pentagon I agree it was a missle. Debri could easily have been planted to make the original story more believable. There was not that much debri found for a big plane. Plus eyewitness testimoney was scarce and unreliable. No official footage showing a plane was ever shown from the worlds most secure building. And lastly the pilots were no were near capable enough to fly such a shallow approach into a relatively short building, over highways, lamp posts, hotels, etc.

I say inside job with 99% certainity but the no plane theory holds water only for the pentagon. I believe it was a predator drone firing some kind of cruise missle. Cruise missles have fins. The predator drone is pretty big and can somewhat relate to a small or medium plane.

Originally posted by WoodSpirit
It seems that if this vid is showing the official flight path,

,that the plane wouldn't even have been visible at all from that hotel, but I might be wrong.

This is the location if I am correct,

Compare to this,

The black arrow is pointing at the object that people on this thread say is the plane, a second before impact, note how it rises above the pentagon and the overpass highway between the camera and the pentagon.
then look back at the official flight path video I posted, one second before impact, does the plane or the tail rise above the pentagon, making it visible on the camera on the hotel?

This the location and the general direction of view towards the pentagon.

Anyway, I don't believe the bright object in the vid is the plane, it is either a car, which is very unlikely due to the speed, or it was photoshopped in before release, to make it appear like a plane, or an actual missile.

I can't deny that an object is visible in the vid right before the explosion, but it can hardly be the plane following its official trajectory.

It doesn't get higher than the pentagon in the last seconds before impact, we can't see the pentagon in the vid because there is a highway overpass in front of it, so how can we see the plane in the vid?

reply to post by bottleslingguy

I love how that simulation video lined everything up perfectly. It made absolute sense and fit all the forensic evidence to the tee. maybe just before impact the plane rose slightly and the reflection we see is the apex just a split second before it hit the light poles. this is great footage and matches the corroborating simulation perfectly

Ah so the simulation is perfect, except for the part that is not in favor of your argument, then it suddenly "rose slightly" to reveal itself on the camera.

Do you know how "not smart" that sounds?

It doesn't fit perfectly because you have to make up a scenario that is not displayed by the simulation.

And again, the vid should've showed the plane at least approaching in the left of the screen when it was still flying higher, not appear out of nowhere in the middle of the screen.

reply to post by Zaphod58


seanmccoll.com...

standing inside a 747 jet turbine INSIDE!! not kneecap height lol

www.youtube.com...

turbines dont come up to people kneecaps just look at them, they are GIANT

sorry that little turbine on the lawn doesnt even come close to this, so maybe not a global hawk but def. not a freakin 747 engine

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
I say inside job with 99% certainity but the no plane theory holds water only for the pentagon. I believe it was a predator drone firing some kind of cruise missle. Cruise missles have fins. The predator drone is pretty big and can somewhat relate to a small or medium plane.

edit on 28/11/12 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)

The Predator is way too small to be mistaken for a medium plane, and can't carry any kind of cruise missile. Cruise missiles are launched from bombers, like the B-1 or B-52. The Tomahawk, which is the primary cruise missile in the US inventory is 18 feet long, and weighs 2650 lbs (20 feet and 3200 with a booster). The Predator is 27 feet long, and capable of carrying a 300 lb external payload and 450 lbs internally. The Reaper, is 36 feet, and can carry 3600 lbs total weight. However, the wings aren't stressed to carry something almost as long as the airframe, and with almost it's entire carrying capacity on one wing.

The AGM-86 runs into the same problem. It's almost 21 feet long, and weighs in at 3150 lbs.

There aren't any UAVs that are currently employed that are big enough to deploy a cruise missile. It would have to be at least half the size of a B-2 at minimum.

And let's not have the usual "Well the military tech is years ahead of where we think it is" argument. That seems to be a standard excuse for explaining away inconvenient facts.

reply to post by ~widowmaker~


And again, IT WASN'T A 747. It was a Boeing 757, which is MUCH smaller than a 747.

Boeing 747:



Boeing 757:



See the difference finally? You're right in that there is no way that turbine came from a 747, but it matches up nicely with a 757. It's too big for a Global Hawk.

RB211:



Look familiar?

RB211 on a 757:



I'm pretty sure that you won't be standing up in that engine.

reply to post by WoodSpirit


I am a patriot. I love this country. I wouldnt want to ever live anywhere else. I can alway try to appeal to emotions as we are humans after all. These were our fellow Americans that died that day. I felt betrayed and violated that day and nothing personal happened to me. But damn it happened to my fellow countrymen and that means something to me. Please, dont pretend you know me or know about me. You dont. I will bleed for you to support your beliefs because I believe you deserve the right to have them. You would probably not bleed for me.

reply to post by TWILITE22


Oh good. A veteran whom you have never met. Someone you dont know from Adam and you're calling him a liar. He is telling of the horror of that day, where he was on the scene and you were not. Scars. ? Maybe he wasnt hurt. That didnt occur to you?

reply to post by WoodSpirit


Yeah but I know what I am seeing. Its a plane. Hey guess what? A PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON on 9/11/01.

reply to post by WoodSpirit

The black arrow is pointing at the object that people on this thread say is the plane, a second before impact, note how it rises above the pentagon and the overpass highway between the camera and the pentagon.
then look back at the official flight path video I posted, one second before impact, does the plane or the tail rise above the pentagon, making it visible on the camera on the hotel?

If you take a close look at the full video that grobi77 posted on page #1, linked below, you will see that this object is a white semi truck possibly pulling a flatbed trailer. Just simply track its path down the freeway and you will clearly see it appear between the trees, after the explosion, at least once and come out the other side at the appropiate time. I used my mouse cursor and approximated its velocity through the trees. After doing this it became obvious to me what this object was, try it yourself.
post by grobi77

longer and better quality

impact @ 1:50

btw: this video isn't new....some versions on youtube uploaded 6 years ago. Nevertheless thanks

reply to post by WoodSpirit


There were news crews on the scene almost immediatly. This was NYC and Rockerfella Plaza and the whole of New Yorks news teams were only blocks away. You may deny the first plane but the second plane was seen by the crowds on the ground and there is footage of them looking up to see this happening. How could anyone deny planes in NY at the very least. Although how they could deny them in any of these locations is beyond me but NY especially.