Flight77.info - Pentagon video release imminent?

Originally posted by Clipper
Are two cameras used?

as I see it yes..check my earlier posts in this thread and dont miss to cmpare pic 2

byway your link
news.bbc.co.uk...

is also interesting..the time intervall is not regular!!!!
So they did take out some frames of the video!

the third inconsistency i see today with this pictures and videos.

edit: just saw: it's the edit time (because the 12.sept) and if it is manuel edited it would be explainable....(but wonder why manuel editing a video frame by frame?)



[edit on 16-5-2006 by g210]

Do any of you think that *someday* the security tapes from the hotel nearby will be released??

FWIW the 747/757 debate, American Airlines doesn't fly 747's (they did a while back but not now). Also for anybody that wants to compare the 757 here are the specs for a 747-400 www.aircanada.com...

Originally posted by CX

On the new video here on CNN, could someone explain to me what this object is when the clip gets to 1min 9secs? As you look at the video, theres a traffic cone on the left with a box slightly to its right in the foreground. Look just between these two nearer the Pentagon and theres what looks like a white/silver post of some kind. At 1min 9secs on the clip, this post suddenly shoots up in the air, or should i say extends. The only way i can desribe it is as if there was a chopped off lamp post, then it suddenly shoots up or extends to it's original height again. Either that or it looks like a fire water hydrant going off as if a car has crashed into it, only nothing has touched it. Probably nothing, i just could'nt make out what it was.

Yep definatly a barrier of some sort, just watched it again

[edit on 16-5-2006 by Tommio]

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
As this video "release" reinforces.....there simply is no evidence that there is any legitimacy to his claim.

More "legitimacy" then you and some others are willing to see or admit, I would imagine, eh?

Why would you trust him over the witnesses that reported a small craft?

Umm, because there were a horde of witnessed people that claimed they say what SO's friend saw, you think?

I would think the "friend" of a conspiracy forum admin wouldn't be the most reliable of witnesses.

Neither would those you have yet to put forth to counter, correct?

And again.....besides mistaking it for a drone; he might have seen the decoy plane that was a commercial airliner that landed at reagan airport within the same minute anyway.

I will ask you again, since you are having difficulties in understanding the implied nature of what I asked you previously: Where you there to witness the event as was SO's friend? Therefore, anything you are saying is best reserved as re-hashed rhetoric that has already been asserted on and within various conspiracy-related sites on 9/11, correct? I would hazard a guess here and state that it was not SO's friend that "mistook" a drone versus a commercial airliners, it was you, among others.







seekerof

[edit on 16-5-2006 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Originally posted by rich23
I still can't quite reconcile the size of a Boeing with the 16' wide hole seen in the earliest photos of the Pentagon.

The body of a 757 is only 12 ft 4 in (3.7 m) wide though:

www.boeing.com...

The wings had nothing behind them, it's the main body that had the punching power, 155 ft 3 in (47.32 m) of 12 ft 4 in (3.7 m) tube punching in at over 400mph.

But then engines hang down BELOW the fuselage and yet there were no markings on the ground nor was there any signs of impact from the vertical stablizer that would have reached 60 feet high if the engines didn't touch the ground.



Look at the fire engine....


Same fire engine next to 757 for scale.....













There was no 757 at the pentagon. It simply doesn't fit.

Originally posted by Seekerof
I will ask you again, since you are having difficulties in understanding the implied nature of what I asked you previously: Where you there to witness the event as was SO's friend? Therefore, anything you are saying is best reserved as re-hashed rhetoric that has already been asserted on and within various conspiracy-related sites on 9/11, correct? I would hazard a guess here and state that it was not SO's friend that "mistook" a drone versus a commercial airliners, it was you, among others.







seekerof

[edit on 16-5-2006 by Seekerof]

Hello there. Could I just enquire of you whether you were "there to witness the event as was SO's friend?" Thanks in advance.





























































Code_Burger

Originally posted by g210
byway your link
news.bbc.co.uk...

is also interesting..the time intervall is not regular!!!!
So they did take out some frames of the video!

the third inconsistency i see today with this pictures and videos.

There was no frame inconsistency or frames removed.
As linked previously, the 2002 CNN video of the incident shows the samething and with no time interval separation or inconsistencies.
CNN Video: 2002







seekerof

Seekerof:


There are confliciting eyewitness accounts.

Period.

Why should you believe one over the other when we know for a fact that there was a decoy plane flown over simultaneously and there were plans to stage terror with drones painted like commercial airliners way back in 1964?!

Google: northwoods document

Not to mention the fact that neither the video nor the physical evidence corroborates the fact that there was a commercial airliner.

Some witnesses may have lied or been planted, some may have been legitimately fooled by the decoy or drone, and some saw it for what it was......a smaller craft.

Originally posted by Code_Burger
Hello there. Could I just enquire of you whether you were "there to witness the event as was SO's friend?" Thanks in advance.

Being I was not addressing you, and since your acting on behalf of the member I did address the question to, ask yourself the same question you are attempting to ask me, k?

Thanks in advance.






seekerof

[edit on 16-5-2006 by Seekerof]

Hi...first post here.

I don't see how the angle of the "plane" entering the frame, and the impact site on the building caused by the plane, is possible. I mean, how hard is it to fly a plane of that size that close to the ground, parallel to the ground, and hit the side of the bulilding without hitting the ground first or overshooting the building. It seems more probable to me that the plane would come in more at an angle and strike the building from the upper side, or the plane would hit the ground before hitting the building, both of which would leaved debris. Flying a plane just feet above the ground, parallel to the ground, seems a little fishy to me.

I saw the video where the military plane hit the concrete wall and disintegrated, but it hit the wall head on, not from an angle The parts of the plane that didn't disintegrate were the parts of the wings that overshot the sides of the concrete wall. From the video, I can now see why if the plane hit the pentagon head on that it may not leave debris, as all would disintegrate, but I just cannot see a plane of this size hitting the pentagon head on like that.

I still think there should be more debris.

Here is another link to the video if you have problems with any of the sites people already posted like bbc, cnn, aol etc..

www.ogrish.com...


I just watched it and I couldnt see a plane. Could someone use a frame from the vide and superimpose a 757 at the right scale over it? Maybe even include the oshkosh firetruck.

Also does anyone have any good videos of a cruise missle impacting and detonating? Not saying thats what it was, but I would like to see some footage for comparisson.

releasing this video somehow affected a trial???

that's weird...

is there any further information about that topic???

also, that video is crappy quality (as noted one hundred times here)...

i wonder when the gov't will release those videos from various gas stations and hotels

Originally posted by warpboost


Also does anyone have any good videos of a cruise missle impacting and detonating? Not saying thats what it was, but I would like to see some footage for comparisson.

have a butchers at this missile

while we're on the subject might aswell look at this video of a cruise missile in flight, look similar to anything??

external vid

[edit on 16-5-2006 by Tommio]

Originally posted by Seekerof

Originally posted by Code_Burger
Hello there. Could I just enquire of you whether you were "there to witness the event as was SO's friend?" Thanks in advance.

Being I was not addressing you, and since your acting on behalf of the member I did address the question to, ask yourself the same question you are attempting to ask me, k?

Obviously the answer is no on all of our parts.

Hardly relevant.

There is no reason to accept SO's "friend's" account over any of the people that reported a small craft.


Conspriacy theory forum admin anonymous buddy or physical/video evidence.......hmmmmmmm.


Since none of the physical evidence backs him up and of course the video and physical evidence DOES back up the small craft claim then it's quite apparent which theory is closer to truth.

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
There are confliciting eyewitness accounts.

Question: what is the percent of those alleged conflicting eyewitness accounts?
Do the vast majority support or deny?
Let that be a guide for your "period."

Why should you believe one over the other when we know for a fact that there was a decoy plane flown over simultaneously and there were plans to stage terror with drones painted like commercial airliners way back in 1964?!

One: you do NOT know for a FACT, for guess what mate, since 2001, there has been NO conclusive or empirical evidence presented to make what you are asserting to be a "fact" a FACT. Hello?!

Google: northwoods document

For?
Why not simply use the ATS search feature and migrate to those topics related to what you want me to check Google for?

Not to mention the fact that neither the video nor the physical evidence corroborates the fact that there was a commercial airliner.

Yes, of course, according to you and others, again.
Try hitting that F-4 video I linked and see how much debris was left, k?

Some witnesses may have lied or been planted, some may have been legitimately fooled by the decoy or drone, and some saw it for what it was......a smaller craft.

That would include those who lied, were planted, and asserted that there was a drone involved and not an commercial airliner? Let me know.







seekerof

[edit on 16-5-2006 by Seekerof]

Why in the Pent footage are we supposed to be seeing a pointed nose cone in one of the frames anyways--- Last time I checked Boeing 757's didnt have a pointed Nose cone??????

Can those who claim to see the plane in the video actually create an outline of it? I mean just draw a box around it, i can see diddly squat.

you know they are getting the end of the arguement when they pull out the "Northwoods Document" reference.

Folks, do a frame by frame and you see the front part of the fuselage, and then the next frame is an explosion. What are we not seeing here ? Planes are not made of concrete, but the Pentagon was. If you take aluminum and you thrust it into a structure such as the Pentagon, what do you expect to be left? If everything is moving forward, how is it going to wind op on the lawn 100 yards from the impact hole like some of you claim there should be.

I think you were all looking for a CGI video to debunk and instead you got the truth.

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

and here are a few eyewitnesses, I think you can google the editor of USA today and send him an email.



[edit on 16-5-2006 by esdad71]

Originally posted by Seekerof
Being I was not addressing you, and since your acting on behalf of the member I did address the question to, ask yourself the same question you are attempting to ask me, k?

Thanks in advance.






seekerof

Ohhh, you didn't address me, huh? Next time I suggest you post your thoughts privately, perhaps via the u2u function provided by this website to it's members, instead of posting them on a public forum where any member is entitled to respond. I should ask the same question I asked you to myself, you say? Why should I? You don't see me going around accusing people of believing false rhetoric because they were not there that day, when I wasn't either, do you? So don't try and subdue Code_Burger with your hypocritical filth, Seekerof. Thank you Kindly.

























































































Code_Burgerof

I would like for ANY of the members who actually SEE a plane, a 757, to PLEASE show us.This is the glory moment all of you have been waiting for just like us.To finally shut us up.Show us the 'plane' hitting and we shall be on our way.
I dont want to see a squiggly smoke trail.I dont want to see a small blur that is just entering the video.I want to see the 'PLANE' in full view.



YOU CANT!!!!!!


If they really wanted to prove a 757 hit the Pentagon, they could have and SHOULD have released the better footage coming from the other REAL video cameras.This junk we are getting is from a crap surveillance cam that is easy to edit in ANY photo imaging software.