Pentagon plane crash

Wrong.


You would see a plane attached to that stream of smoke, but you do not. You would see the massive body of an airliner going into the Pentagon, but you do not. You would see SOMETHING, but you do not.

So, somehow a plane traveling from the Interstate (which is about where I think that shot of the smoke trail came from, to the building, at 300 mph, is going to cover that distance in more than the 2-3 FPS rate of the camera that was on the post? The distance from the Interstate is only a few plane lengths going from the overhead shots. For it to take long enough for that slow fish eye lens to capture the plane impacting it would have to be going much slower than it was reported.

To the OP:

This is already being discussed here (among other threads)

www.abovetopsecret.com...

With the smoke trail, if you pause that video at the 24th second, you'll see the smoke trail, but you see nothing else. With that smoke trail, you'd see something in front of that, but you don't.

At all.

If you see something there, like an airliner for example, please point it out to me.

Sorry but if you can see a smoke/vapour trail it doesn't matter how fast the object creating it is moving, you would still see something in that same frame! Unless its quite low to the ground?

You can't have it both ways on here, to give dimentions for a plane and then try to deny existence of the dimentional object in the only hard live evidence (tampering aside) is staggering.

What, you really don't think that a few thousand lives in your country might be used to further an agenda? I think a look back at our democratic governments history might be in order.

We are nothing to those that initiate this agenda except meaningless pawns. Believe this and may be it won't seem such a leap to except what your eyes are telling you?

Hi,

I have not saw this video on other previous threads, so I post here.

Nice found Loutty, and thanks for sharing.

Here are 2 images to help in the discussion:

At 23 seconds
www.picsoup.com..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>
smoke/vapour trail at 24 seconds

Too near the ground for a plain I think, maybe a missile or a fast car?

brotherthebig.

All this mumbo jumbo proves without any doubt that the US military are the dumbest most idiotic asociation of humans in the face of the earth, WHY?

because they are so stupid that they have just ONE cheapo camera to survey a "side" of the MOST IMPORT MILITARY TARGET OF THE WORLD.

Heck I even have 7 cameras in my home, so maybe they need an expert in security to tell them what kind of cameras and security they need......oh wait they were so STUPID they did not even think about the possibility of an attack someday...

I rest my case....

[edit on 8-4-2007 by kix]

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The 44 foot height of a 757 is with the landing gear extended. It's not nearly that tall when it's in flight. As for the white smoke, it's probably a damaged engine after taking debris from hitting a light pole through it.

With gear up whats the measurement from bottom of engine to tip of tailfin?

[edit on 4/8/2007 by infinityoreilly]

Originally posted by artysmokes
(Lumps of fuselage with the correct passenger jet insignia was scattered all over the place).
.
youtube.com...

Where are the chunks of fuseloge raining down on the lawn in this video?

The white stuff is not a smoke trail! It may have been reasonable to guess that in 2002 when we had no other footage for comparison - but last August we got the footage from the other camera with nothing for "the plane" to hide behind - here's the same white "smoke" entering the frame by itself.

It's neither smoke from the 757 nor a missile IMO. It's the 757,silver and reflecting the morning sun. Or doctored in for some reason. Whatever, it is the object we're supposed to see, not a trail behind it.
But the dark "tailfin" behind the box? Well I don't know everything... any guesses anyone?

Originally posted by kix
All this mumbo jumbo proves without any doubt that the US military are the dumbest most idiotic asociation of humans in the face of the earth, WHY?

because they are so stupid that they have just ONE cheapo camera to survey a "side" of the MOST IMPORT MILITARY TARGET OF THE WORLD.

Heck I even have 7 cameras in my home, so maybe they need an expert in security to tell them what kind of cameras and security they need......oh wait they were so STUPID they did not even think about the possibility of an attack someday...

I rest my case....

Unfortunately your pivotal case on the IQ of our domestic enemies is flawed in that everyone knows they had other cameras, and many of them. This is just all that's been released. They may be many things, but stupid is not one of them. Unfortunately. Dumb villains are so much more managable-seeming.

Originally posted by infinityoreilly
Where are the chunks of fuseloge raining down on the lawn in this video?

Recall the low resolution, which wouuld make smaller scraps, like the obliterated silver wings, invisible. For larger pieces as recorded in this video, see below:



I am getting a little more respect for you BTW.

I wonder when the rest of the camera angles will be released, I'm gonna hold my breath until they are! HHHHHHHUMMMMMP!

Hi,

The report is vailable for download here www.planetpdf.com... or in audio here freeclassicaudiobooks.com... .

This will give some clarifications and some more doubts.

brotherthebig.

i thought it was a missile, cause i didnt see a plane there, and that they didnt show much footage on the pentagon.

9/11 the Big Lie



Hi,

I hadn’t found any references to these 3 books in ATS, so I am posting here, because they provide very good information on the “plane” at the Pentagon and about all the 9/11.

The book The Big Lie - 911 and Government Complicity in Mass Murder (2005) by David Kay, is very well written and is a mass source of information, I recommend it to everyone that wants to seek the truth and overcome ignorance, not only related to 9/11 but also to other hideous actions from the US Government classified projects that are now coming to the general knowledge. The book has plenty of web resources, so verification of is allegations is easy, and is thesis is based on the Big Lie, like used by the Nazi’s propaganda during WWII.

Another one from 2002, is

Thierry Meyssan's Big Lie

and the recent one only about the Pentagon

anyone knows if they are available free in e-book format?

More resources:
. en.wikipedia.org...:_The_Big_Lie (2002 French book)
. www.effroyable-imposture.net...
. en.wikipedia.org...
. www.awesumo.com...

brotherthebig.

I always had a hard time believing a plane hit the Pentagon. It seemed to me that if a plane hit five lite poles there wouldn't be much of a plane left to hit the Pentagon. Then I run across this story of a Gulfstream II jet. Sorry no link, I'm new at this. Plane Crash Kills 3; was to pick up expresident Bush. At CNN.com, Monday, Nov. 22, 2004. The jet enroute from Love Field in Dallas, was approaching the runway when it clipped a lite pole, losing part of a wing, authorities said. Wreckage extended about 100 yards from there. I just can't see how a plane can hit five poles and keep flying.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Considering that we're looking through a fish eye lens, from a camera that takes pictures every couple of seconds, and trying to see a plane moving at 300+ mph I'm not surprised that we don't see it in the picture.

Yes, and at the same time I am surprised that the PENTAGON, the HQ of the WORLDS MOST POWERFUL MILITARY has virtually no video surveillance.

Do you really believe that the PENTAGON did not have at least ONE CAMERA that caught this event clearly?

My local Wal-Mart has 20+ cameras I can SEE pointing to the parking lot ALONE and I live in Wonder Bread Suburbia.

Considering that cheap DVR systems from SPECO, etc capture 120FPS+ how is thios possible that we have NO FOOTAGE?

I call 100% BS on these facts alone.

They also have no defenses? Weird. I would think ANY military installation MUCH LESS THE PENTAGON would have some sort of defensive systems... but that is just me. I am SURE that the DoD is WAY smarter than me and have a VERY valid reason for leaving themselves WIDE OPEN to an attack.

[edit on 10-5-2007 by Pootie]

Originally posted by Paul3
I just can't see how a plane can hit five poles and keep flying.

Flight 255 out of Detroit hit a SINGLE light pole at takeoff speeds and lost 16' of its left wing. It was an MD-82.

Now, it was going to crash anyway because the pilots forgot the slats and flaps were not in position (doh) BUT the pole smoked the wing.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
The white stuff is not a smoke trail! It may have been reasonable to guess that in 2002 when we had no other footage for comparison - but last August we got the footage from the other camera with nothing for "the plane" to hide behind - here's the same white "smoke" entering the frame by itself.

It's neither smoke from the 757 nor a missile IMO. It's the 757,silver and reflecting the morning sun. Or doctored in for some reason. Whatever, it is the object we're supposed to see, not a trail behind it.
But the dark "tailfin" behind the box? Well I don't know everything... any guesses anyone?

Since you're asking for guesses....

My guess is the 5 frames that were released were all photoshopped/doctored images. The "artist" put in the tail fin and the smoke trail. This created enough controversey and stirred up the "no plane at the pentagon" theories.

Then, after the bait was taken, a second set of hi-res frames were released clearly showing something that looks much more like a plane. This had the intended result of making the "truth" crowd look like wackos.

It also had the effect of diverting attention away from substantive issues like why the FAA cooperated in allowing the Pentagon to get hit in the first place. I.e., if the debate is about whether or not a plane hit the Pentagon, the discussion isn't about why the FAA let a plane hit the Pentagon.

Anyway, that's just my guess.