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

Originally posted by Amanda5
I have been following this thread and joining in periodically. Can I ask this - can one person provide one photograph or shot from a video - that clearly shows a plane approaching the pentagon.

Not a blob or blur or a shape that you tell me is a plane. A distinct and clear photograph and/or shot from a video that shows me - so I can see clearly for myself - a large jet plane - travelling towards the pentagon - along the ground - just before it slams into the building.

This will clear the argument up for me. I need to see for myself an image that I recognise to be a jet plane. Can anyone do this or does the government not want us to see the images????!!!!!

With all the mobile phones and digital cameras and security cameras all over the place - I find it hard to believe that there is not one single photograph/moving picture of a huge jet plane flying towards the pentagon or even a shot of it low to the ground just prior to impact.

Much Peace...

If only a clear picture/video of AA 77 just before impact will satisfy you I have to assume you reject this evidence :-

a) telephone calls from plane

b) radar tracking

c) air traffic control evidence from Reagan National Airport

d) 100 plus recorded eyewitnesses

e) physical evidence of final flightpath, downed light poles and struck generator etc

f) security gate frames showing that, at a minimum, something with a large vertical stabiliser flew into the Pentagon

g) flight data recorder recovered from Pentagon with recoverable data

h) aircraft wreckage within and without the Pentagon compatible with a Boeing 757

i) dna identified body parts of passengers and crew recovered from the Pentagon

j) personal effects recovered from the Pentagon

If you reject all that I have to say that I am very doubtful that any picture would in fact make much difference to you. You seem to me to be setting up a hurdle which you must know is very unlikely to have been realised. This aircraft was travelling at 815 feet per second just before impact so the idea of people getting out digital cameras, videorecorders or camera phones and using them effectively is completely unrealistic. You are really left with hope that cctv will capture something but because of the slow frame rate, maybe as low as 1 per second, you were never going to get your clear picture.

Originally posted by RedShirt73
Just thought I'd add the vid from the camera that had the better view of the explosion.

The strike happens between 23 to 25 seconds. If you notice at the 24 second mark there seems to be a long white cylinder on the right-handside about three quarters up on the side of the video. You can notice it just above the bright orange cone. At the 23 second mark nothing is there, then at the 24 second mark you see what appears to be a small white line that appears out of nowhere. Then the explosion at 25 seconds. Any Thoughts?

My thoughts are. The object is too small to be a 757, no matter if you think everything in the video is smaller than it really is. Flying at 500 mph, that close to the ground, perfectly level so as to leave no marks on the grass? For a novice small plane pilot to pull that off (flying level inches off the ground) in a small plane would seem unlikely, but for that same novice pilot to do it in a 757? I say impossible.

reply to post by Alfie1


The pentagon plane flyover of course. Why do you think the security camera photos, the position of the downed light poles and the flightpath of the plane according to the flight data recorder all disagree with one another?

Originally posted by Morg234
reply to post by Alfie1

 

The pentagon plane flyover of course. Why do you think the security camera photos, the position of the downed light poles and the flightpath of the plane according to the flight data recorder all disagree with one another?

No they don't. Have a look at this analysis of the last few seconds of the fdr data :-

www.journalof911studies.com...

The supposed Pentagon flyover is completely discredited, even in the truther world, and there is not a single witness to it.

reply to post by saturnsrings

For a novice small plane pilot to pull that off (flying level inches off the ground) in a small plane would seem unlikely, but for that same novice pilot to do it in a 757? I say impossible.

He wasn't flying inches off the ground.
It was a constant decent.
Crashing is easy. Landing softly on the gears is hard.

Actually landing is not that hard either. I remember my one flight lesson I recieved as a gift.
The instructor had me do everything from starting the engine to take off and landing.

With a 44 foot tall Rudder that 757 had to be feet off the ground .
The Pentagon is 73 feet tall. So he was under 30 ft. And where's the plane if
his approach was anything but a ground hugging 500 mph straightline ?
I see nothing decending in the video.

Originally posted by sealing
With a 44 foot tall Rudder that 757 had to be feet off the ground .
The Pentagon is 73 feet tall. So he was under 30 ft. And where's the plane if
his approach was anything but a ground hugging 500 mph straightline ?
I see nothing decending in the video.

edit on 29-11-2012 by sealing because: punctuation

Have a look at this analysis of the last few seconds of data from AA 77's fdr :-

www.journalof911studies.com...

The aircraft clipped the first light pole at a height of approximately 31 feet ( that is about 1000 feet from the Pentagon.) The final radio altitude reading was 4 feet. So in the final 1000 feet, which took a little over a second to cover, it descended some 27 feet.

reply to post by sealing

With a 44 foot tall Rudder that 757 had to be feet off the ground .
The Pentagon is 73 feet tall. So he was under 30 ft. And where's the plane if
his approach was anything but a ground hugging 500 mph straightline ?
I see nothing decending in the video.

What was the elevation above sea level for both the Pentagon and the camera and objects in the way?
What was the total distance the plane tail was visible in the video?
Was the camera tilted with respect to true horizontal? It may match the road but the road may be sloped. That alone could make a decending plane look level or even asending.

And once you mish mash over the video for a couple of days you are still left with all those pesky eye witnesses.

The defining questions about the Pentagon are right before our eyes: according to the official story the fuselage adhered to one set of physical laws, while the engines adhered to another. It doesn't really matter what you argue in defence of the official conspiracy theory, you will only be proving one of the two alternate realities surrounding the Pentagon false. Go ahead and give me your best shot ...

Originally posted by Cade
according to the official story the fuselage adhered to one set of physical laws, while the engines adhered to another.

care to back that silly claim up?

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by sealing
With a 44 foot tall Rudder that 757 had to be feet off the ground .
The Pentagon is 73 feet tall. So he was under 30 ft. And where's the plane if
his approach was anything but a ground hugging 500 mph straightline ?
I see nothing decending in the video.

edit on 29-11-2012 by sealing because: punctuation

Have a look at this analysis of the last few seconds of data from AA 77's fdr :-

www.journalof911studies.com...

The aircraft clipped the first light pole at a height of approximately 31 feet ( that is about 1000 feet from the Pentagon.) The final radio altitude reading was 4 feet. So in the final 1000 feet, which took a little over a second to cover, it descended some 27 feet.

You have proven that a light pole was clipped, but where is the evidence it was an airplane? The question is, if you can arrange a massive coverup on a global scale that fools MOST of the people [I said "most"] is it impossible to make a light pole fall? The light poles does not explain how the fuselage could penetrate the outer ring while the engines could not penetrate the outer wall. You are accepting two opposing realities, it's called cognitive dissonance. Wake up and cross the two wires in your head.

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by Cade
according to the official story the fuselage adhered to one set of physical laws, while the engines adhered to another.

care to back that silly claim up?

You think it's silly to describe what every photo from the Pentagon shows us? Then why are you participating in a serious debate about the Pentagon? Have you no respect for the seriousness of the situation? What a silly silly comment.

reply to post by samkent


eyewitnesses cannot explain why the fuselage could penetrate the outer ring while the engines could not penetrate the outer wall. And neither can you. And there's a very good reason for both: it's physically impossible. Welcome to reality, you are 11 years late.

reply to post by samkent

Sure, crashing is easy, and you might be one heck of a pilot, but neither explains why the engines could not penetrate the outer wall while the fuselage allegedly penetrated the outer ring.

reply to post by Cade


Well, since there are photos of engine components inside the Pentagon, you are a bit off in your beliefs. Next?

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Cade

 

Well, since there are photos of engine components inside the Pentagon, you are a bit off in your beliefs. Next?

So you confirm that the photos show us that the engines could not penetrate the outer walls, and then you refer to it as a belief when I state exactly that and suggest it must be wrong, when I "believe" what you yourself just confirmed, that the images show. Next?
Edit: I forgot, how did the engine parts end up inside the Pentagon without penetrating the outer walls? History channel tell us the wings simply fell off before the "plane" hit, others say that the batman airplane folded it's wings together and now we have to believe that the fuselage travelled through a hole that seems to be smaller than the fuselage itself, ALONG WITH ...the wings and engines. How do you explain that?

reply to post by Cade


You are good for a laugh, that is for sure. Parts of the engines did penetrate the Pentagon. The majority of the engine pods did not. The, uh, engine pods are what hold the engines btw...they are.the big round things.mounted on the pylons under the wings.....

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Cade

 

You are good for a laugh, that is for sure. Parts of the engines did penetrate the Pentagon. The majority of the engine pods did not. The, uh, engine pods are what hold the engines btw...they are.the big round things.mounted on the pylons under the wings.....

Perhaps when you have finished laughing you can explain how these engine parts found their way into the Pentagon? Then we can all take part in the laughing.

reply to post by Zaphod58


rwgroup.com...

yah ? and using your own example the guy working on it is barely half way across if he were to lay flat on it it would still be much larger than the photo from pentagon where it barely reaches his knee

abcnews.go.com...

757 still way bigger look at the people compared to the engine?

Originally posted by Cade
you can explain how these engine parts found their way into the Pentagon?

The same way all the other aircraft parts made their way inside - you must have missed that fact that a 757 crashed into the Pentagon!