Pentagon Video made easy.........

reply to post by Seventh


Here is a basic cognitive disconnect, as I like to call it lately...when non-pilots try to delve into the firld ov aviation accident investigation.....

From YOUR source:

Narrative:

The airplane was on an ILS approach to runway 4

OK...I will jump out here, to explain. "ILS Approach" means the airplane was configured for landing. It was at APPROACH speeds......NOT at insane suicidal speed.....

when it struck a light pole adjacent to a roadway and crashed into a field.

WHY did it strike the light pole???

Let's examine the story....

Just prior to the crash the air traffic controller had warned the crew: "Gulfstream eight five victor tango, check your altitude, altitude indicates four hundred feet."

THIS IS A CLUE!!!!

Keep reading.....

The METAR

'METAR' is an aviation term....it is the standard ICAO format for Meteorlogical Terminal Aviation Report...hourly observations made at airports....also repeated on the ATIS. IN THE US, they are usually made at just a few minutes before each hour...depending on the facility, they can be automated....machines that take the atmospheric readings, and then the data is recorded and transmitted on a radio frequency, using a voice synthesizer.

'TAF' is Terminal Area Forecast....yo will see these sometimes, with the METAR.

... around the time of the accident read: KHOU 221253Z 12005KT 1/8SM BR BKN001 BKN006 OVC050 22/22 A3002 (wind 120 degrees at 5kts, visibility 1/8nm/230 m, mist 5-7 oktas cloud at 100ft, 5-7 oktas cloud at 600ft, 8 oktas overcast cloud at 5000ft, temperature 22C, dewpoint 22C, QNH 30.02in)

Well, they mostly decoded it for you....btw, 'KHOU' is the airport code for Houston Hobby.

Oh....they didn't decode it all....I can help.

"KHOU" ... is the airport ICAO identifier. "221252Z" means the observaton was on the 22nd of the month, at 1252 Zulu. ('Zulu' means GMT, or more correctly, UTC) The rest, they did for you....

PROBABLE CAUSE:

"The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was the flight crew’s failure to adequately monitor and cross-check the flight instruments during the approach. Contributing to the accident was the flight crew’s failure to select the instrument landing system frequency in a timely manner and to adhere to approved company approach procedures, including the stabilized approach criteria."

In layman's terms, they screwed up.

Hitting the approach lights....because of an improper procedure and insufficient cockpit discipline....

Hitting the lights WAS NOT the reason for this crash!

The airplane was being operated in WHAT THEY THOUGHT was a correct manner....in limited visibility, but in fact they screwed it up!!!

This is entirely different froman INTENTIONAL suicide attack!!!

reply to post by weedwhacker


I prefer the easier to understand part .......

Narrative:
The airplane was on an ILS approach to runway 4 when it struck a light pole adjacent to a roadway and crashed into a field.

reply to post by Seventh


Sorry....but it's still the old "apples to oranges" problem, of comparison.

An airplane, already slow and configured for landing, that strikes an obstacle might suffer sufficeint structural damage to result in a crash....prior to the intended target (in this case, the runway)

Compare to AA77.

FAST-moving. NOT in the landing configuration, and NOT slow and vulnerable, as in a normal landing situation.

FAST!!! Having momentum. NOT normal. (for airplanes near the ground...)

See????

PS...I hope I don't have to find that YouTube B757 video again???? The high-speed low pass???

Originally posted by Seventh

Wrong, I spend hours trying to find similar incidences to cross reference, I wish you guys would actually look at them.

Are you flipping kidding me?!? You're honestly comparing a small gulf stream business jet approaching at landing speed with a large Boeing 757 flying at 400MPH+??? That's like comparing an SUV with a touring bus. That's not even counting the differences between the lights they have at airports vs. the lights they have on highways.

Good grief, the stunts you truthers pull to keep your conspiracy stories alive...

Dear oh dear Dave, why was that video kept classified for so long?,

...to give them time to edit out the UFOs hovering over the Pentagon...?

Seriously, who flipping cares why it took them so long to release it. Witnesses specifically saw it was a passenger jet. There was gigantic amounts of wreckage both inside the Pentagon and out on the front lawn of the Pentagon. Even logic and common sense says that the conspirators had at least two other disposable jet liners under their control, and that it would be unnecessary to deviate from what they already had on hand.

I am absolutely satisfied that it was in fact a passenger jet that hit the Pentagon, with or without this footage. The fact that you have to rely on blurry and out of focus videos and comparison of apples and oranges to show otherwise only serves to confirm your argument is weak.




[edit on 25-9-2009 by GoodOlDave]

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Okay let`s do it the neutral way, we were not there, this CNN reporter was..

www.youtube.com...

Now, why the hell does he describe it as no evidence of a plane crashing whatsoever?..

Neutral point of view once again, from someone who was where, we were not

Even the chair of the 9/11 Commission now admits that the official evidence they were given was ‘far from the truth’.

rinf.com...

Jeez, how hard is it for you guys to wake up and see the light, remove the evidence that they provided and said you saw, and what actual evidence is there?.

I could go on for ever and a day with similar links from neutral people heavily involved, you really do need to remove those tainted glasses you wear, go and research some main aspects regarding neutral people, why is it they all smell a rat?.

EDIT: P.S.

P.S.

If you cannot work out the importance of authenticity of why that video was classified, then this debate is not for you, plain and simple, tbh you debunking that video only strengthens the truth cause, a huge pointer to how flimsy the whole fiasco is.

And you cannot work out the whole psychological benefits of involving the Pentagon also???.





[edit on 25-9-2009 by Seventh]

reply to post by Seventh

Now, why the hell does he describe it as no evidence of a plane crashing whatsoever?..

Because it did not look like what he expected???

Come on...out of context, off the cuff comments = proof???????

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Sorry....but it's still the old "apples to oranges" problem, of comparison.

An airplane, already slow and configured for landing, that strikes an obstacle might suffer sufficeint structural damage to result in a crash....prior to the intended target (in this case, the runway)

Compare to AA77.

FAST-moving. NOT in the landing configuration, and NOT slow and vulnerable, as in a normal landing situation.

FAST!!! Having momentum. NOT normal. (for airplanes near the ground...)

See????

PS...I hope I don't have to find that YouTube B757 video again???? The high-speed low pass???

Now I am confused...

1). Lights in places where aircraft both take off and land.

2). As I have been reliably informed, these lights are designed as to not damage stray aircraft, and are placed in appropriate places, runways and surrounding areas that use lights are using the aircraft friendly ones.

3). Now correct me if I am wrong but surely a light designed for this purpose must have incorporated the facts of landing planes weaknesses into its construction?, otherwise these seem pointless.

4). So the way I am seeing it is, these lights only work if the vehicle weighs around 100 tons and is travelling at around 500 mph 5 feet above ground, unlike 99% of what I would estimate their sole purpose as, and that is planes affected by cross winds, off course, having to crash land.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Seventh

 

Now, why the hell does he describe it as no evidence of a plane crashing whatsoever?..

Because it did not look like what he expected???

Come on...out of context, off the cuff comments = proof???????

No WW, he was there, we were not, he is neither a truther nor debunker, okay the commission chairman, why did he state what he stated?.

EDIT: P.S.

P.S.

You do not have had to witness something to know what to expect it should look like... Scenario... There has been a huge battle we are told just over the hill a minute ago, we get to the battle zone where it is reported a thousand men died, (we have never seen a battle before, so we do not know what to expect), we look around, there are no bodies and not one drop of blood or discarded weapons.

Now there would be certain things that are in your face whilst looking at the Pentagon crash, how did it impact here and leave no wing or engine damage, absolutely no debris, and how did it miss those huge cable reels?, plus a lot more.

[edit on 25-9-2009 by Seventh]

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by talisman

BTW, did they match the Serial Numbers back to flight 77? Or was that another given as well?

They didn't need to. The black box was recovered from the Pentagon crash site and it definitely came from AA77. That's also how they know how the pilots navigated the planes to their targets- they just fed the airport closest to the intended target into the autopilot and turned it on. In AA77's case, they fed Ronald Reagan in.

Of course, if people are in a mind to disbelieve everything that disproves their conspiracies then I doubt this would sway them, either.

first correct thing youve contributed to this thread Gman.

now as you say the black box data was recovered at some point .. where from we can only speculate .. however the data contained ran as a simulation by and shown on pilots for 911 truth paints a different story than the official conspiracy theory of 19 men in america conspiring with some caveman on mobiles to fly 4 planes into 4 targets on american soil espoused by the american officialdom.

dave your agendi is quite clear you have no valid point but you sure are going to make it loud long and persistently so just do us a favour take your unsourced repetitive rubbish and ffo kcuf .

pilotsfor911truth.org...

[edit on 25-9-2009 by manxman2]

[edit on 25-9-2009 by manxman2]

[edit on 25-9-2009 by manxman2]

reply to post by manxman2



P4T are talking a lot out of their....solid waste disposal orifices.

Here is a snippet fromthe 'dialog' you linked:

So, lets go on what we have. The last known altitude reported for AA77 was 7000 feet. And travelled 33 miles in 5 minutes. Thats 6.6 miles per minute or 396 knots (Update: FDR data shows 325 knots average airspeed. 9/11 Commission Report is inaccurate). Then the aircraft began a 330 degree spiraling dive, leveling at 2200 feet to accelerate to the Pentagon while continuing descent.

He started the maneuver at 7000 feet, 396 knots, dove almost 5000 feet within a 330 degree turn and covered 5 miles in about 3 minutes.

See? Already they are lying. LOOK at the video provided, on YouTube by ONE OF THEIR OWN MEMBERS!!!

The turn is started from an altitude of 8,000 feet, and airspeed is 290 knots.

See the lie, up above????

THEN.....

So lets take an avg speed throughout the dive of 430 knots (7 miles/min). We know a standard rate turn is 2 mins for 360 degrees. So lets say he completed the turn in just under 2 minutes.

MORE misdirection. IF these were actually airline pilots, then they'd know that turn rates depend on SPEED and BANK ANGLE. The 'standard rate turn' is, indeed, two minutes for 360 degrees. At higher speeds, as in jets...air traffic controllers, and pilots, know that turn rates at high speeds, and norml bank angles, is NOY 'standard'....

Since we dont know bank angles or speed.

ANOTHER LIE!!!! It is in the video, supplied by the NTSB, and proffered by one of their members....

Why do they lie so consistently????

That means he was descending at better than 2500 fpm dropping almost 5000 feet only gaining 30 knots. No problem for guys like you and me, but for Hani? We'll get to him later...

Jeeeze! These guys apparently have never flown a jet.

Idle power, in normal descent in a jet....2500 fpm is not unusual. Holding an airspeed, in a descent, is not difficult. ADDING POWER will, depending on pitch attitude, mean an increase in airspeed...which was seen at the END, as the AA 77 was intentionally flown into the Pentagon.

Pilots understand this, yet these boobs repeat their nonsense, and others buy into it.

WHY??????

Adding....the video....

(and it has the snarky comments, provided by the YT poster...can't help that, but he shows his ignorance so well....)






[edit on 25 September 2009 by weedwhacker]

and you my friend bring forth multitudes of words and spit out factoids for fun .. without one iota source material to back any of it up .. personally i think you Gmen are just fullof#.

massive posts all designed to splinter debate .. like judases for your 30 pieces of silver .. but i suppose 2.3 trillion buys alot of judicy.

If I remember right that video is garbage WeedEater. Calibrations were never set properly for Sea Level height. So the Altitude that is being shown in that animation is completely off. The animation = worthless.

Me I'll put my money on a group of tried and tested pilots who humbly say they couldn't pull this manuever, but Hani Hanjour "Who could not fly at all", did it in one go with a very nasty lanscape.

Where was our defenses as he casually circled around the MOST SENSITIVE AIRSPACE IN THE WORLD for some 20 minutes??????

Yea I know your some type of pilot or maintenance guy for airplanes or have some hours in Cessenas, whatever, but sorry I gotta give the nod to PILOTS for 9/11 truth here. Because they have ZERO motive, and are just calling it as they see it. And it Looks bad, nevermind how it smells.

The final dive this 767 makes after crossing the overpass and clipping poles, and then levels off at a rediculous angle just to fly about 2 or 3 above the pentago lawn(as we know the pentagon sits in a bit of a 'crater' for lack of a better word, without doing ANY damage to the foundation is just unreasonable, and frankly impossible.

Come on there's Cameras that monitor traffic all along the route outside the Pentagon. There's Cameras all over the roof of the pentagon itself spaced about every 25-30 feet apart.

All the Government had to do was within a day or two after 9/11 was realese some video of a Large passenger jet striking the building. They still can't do it till this Day!.

However an incident that took place over an hour and a half before hand was capture on so many video cameras it's rediculous.

You would think (and I believe there were) people after hearing about NY and seeing the one plnae shadowed by another "supposedly" would be lining that bridge and route toward the Pentagon Cameras ready in Hand to capture anything.

But they caught nothing.

Because No Large Commercial Aircraft hit the pentagon.

Do some research on mass mind control and psy-ops. When people hear on thier TV's and Car Radios that 2 Large passenger jets crashed into the each of the World trade Centers and thousands of people were presumed dead; They are EXPECTING to SEE a Large Plane Hit a Building. This is a classic psy-op.

So incoming plane witnesses saw that, oddly no footage AT ALL, except for 1 frame, count it 1 single Frame (that mind you was released years later and had the wrong date stamped on it, and doesn't show SQUAT). It's a smack in the face to every U.S. citizen.

Back to the psy-op...HUGE PLANE does basically an aborted landing and flies right over the Pentagon syncronized with Explosives or the huge white smoke trail projectile. I doubt more that 5% actually watched the entire thing, while 95% haveing thier cars and persons being blown around in the wake of this Huge Aircraft, most likely put there heads between thier knees for safety reasons. As I believe Sean Boger did. But he want us to believe he stood there and watched an enourmous AA twin engine passenger jet crash some 35 feet from him and didn't have his retinas burned out from the heat. Admit it shawn you hit the deck like 95% of everyone else.

Now Huge plane is gone, things are dead quite, the pentagons on fire....what do you think the 95 out of 100 people who didn't actually see the plane crash into the pentagon will deduce, after what they were told happened in N.Y. ?????

This accoun ts for almost every eye witness testimony, whats it at today 200? 300? who say they saw a plane crash into the Pentagon. Makes for a great story to tell your grandkids, but get them in the confessional of thier choice. I believe it'd go something like this...

"Father forgive, I've told a white lie. I really didn't actually SEE the plane hit the pentagon, but it was so low, my car was shaking, (for those on foot) I was knocked to the ground. Next thing I know the plane is gone, and the Pentagon was on fire. So Father, after hearing reports from N.Y. well I put 2 and 2 together, and said I saw the plane hit the building. I mean it had to have......right? Does this make me a bad person father?"

"Of course not my child, you did what you thought was right under VERY stressful conditions. "Say 10 Hail Mary's and 5 Our Fathers"

PSY-OP

It's sad to say that on 9/11/01 my house had better defenses than the Pentagon.

[edit on 27-9-2009 by Nola213]

reply to post by Nola213


I'm sorry, but you could not be more incorrect -- especially in your impression of ME, and my experience levels and skill sets. I post in other threads, ya know...

... that video is garbage.... Calibrations were never set properly for Sea Level height. So the Altitude that is being shown in that animation is completely off.

No, you have heard things, but not fully understood the details, nor the technical details.

The animation = worthless.

No. You have to understand that the animation was made FROM the SSFDR data...which is completely digital in original format, is recorded on to Solid State media devices (think of a 'flash drive') and includes over two hundred individual inputs from various points and sensors on the airplane.

Me I'll put my money on a group of tried and tested pilots who humbly say they couldn't pull this manuever...

Well...IF you refer to the P4T bunch...I found it hilarious that you accused ME of just being a mechanic, or a light airplane pilot. With the notable exception of a very few pilots who ACTUALLY ONCE FLEW transport category jets (and John Lear is one -- but of course he diverts from their established story, with his holograms nonsense) most of the P4T crowd ARE those light airplane pilots and mechanics and air trafffic controllers...and wannabe pilots whose major knowledge comes from MicroSoft Flight Sim!!!

Oh, btw --- "this maneuver", as depicted, is not difficult, at all. Start a turn, maintain at least approximately the same airspeed and bank angle, and when you finish 360 degrees, you will be in just about the smae place where you started...with allowances for any drift from prevailing winds, or significant airspeed/bank angle fluctuations.

He made a turn of about 330 degrees, total. There is a good bit of visibility, from the cockpit of the B757/767 (I happen to have thousands of hours flying them). Turning, and then finding your "target" as it comes around into view again is easy, in such nice weather as we had that day. ("We", because I live here.)

Where was our defenses as he casually circled around the MOST SENSITIVE AIRSPACE IN THE WORLD for some 20 minutes??????

"circled" around for 20 minutes? No. Check again.

I suggest, as to the "dive" past the overpass...you check google earth, look at some street views.

Come on there's Cameras that monitor traffic all along the route outside the Pentagon.

Show us.

There's Cameras all over the roof of the pentagon itself spaced about every 25-30 feet apart.

Show us. You seem to be taking a lot for granted....

AND, currently installed surveillance sinnce 9/11 doesn't count.

However an incident that took place over an hour and a half before hand was capture on so many video cameras it's rediculous.

Do you mean United 175 impact? Ummm...don't you realize that the cameras were trained on the WTC BECAUSE of American 11?

There is exactly ONE video of that impact...by pure chance.

You would think (and I believe there were) people after hearing about NY and seeing the one plnae shadowed by another "supposedly" would be lining that bridge and route toward the Pentagon Cameras ready in Hand to capture anything.

Illogical.

And, there was no "shadowing" of airplanes at the Pentagon. Check the actual timelines, again.

Oh, and recall....at 0937 the WTC had not collapsed, yet. Right?

Back to the psy-op...HUGE PLANE does basically an aborted landing and flies right over the Pentagon syncronized with Explosives or the huge white smoke trail projectile.

Nope.

I doubt more that 5% actually watched the entire thing, while 95% haveing thier cars and persons being blown around in the wake of this Huge Aircraft, most likely put there heads between thier knees for safety reasons.

LOL! THAT'S a new one...s between knees, while sitting in their cars!!!

OH....any wake of a large airplane is very localized, and the STRONGEST wake is when the airplane is in a high-lift configuration, and at low speeds. UNLESS it passes very, very closely, of course.

As I believe Sean Boger did.

Ummm.....

...35 feet from him and didn't have his retinas burned out from the heat.

???? Huh? Earth to Nola!

Sean is one of the CIT's best "witnesses"...he NOW goes with their bogusness of the "flyover", but of course he ALSO said earlier that he SAW the impact...probably, like you said, just before ducking. Not sure if he was limber enough to put his head between his knees, though.

Now Huge plane is gone, things are dead quite...

"quiet"??? Really?

....what do you think the 95 out of 100 people who didn't actually see the plane crash into the pentagon will deduce, after what they were told happened in N.Y. ?????

Well, 106 people actually have stated that they SAW the impact...not "deduced" it. Research.

PSY-OP

Yes. From CIT.

It's sad to say that on 9/11/01 my house had better defenses than the Pentagon.

Nonsense. Shame for trivializing it.
__________________________________________________________




[edit on 27 September 2009 by weedwhacker]

It looks to me that Seventh has exposed video tampering by pentagon official S& F for you, I believe they didn’t want us to see the missal flying into the pentagon or there would have been no reason to tamper with the video in the first place. It is obvious the government is covering up their crime, and I don’t care what the GL think they are traitors to the American people by knowing the truth yet they continue to defend the real criminals. Just like the people that support the WMD they knew better. The government didn’t need to higher hundreds of disinformationist at the pentagon to spread disinformation of a Boeing crashing into the pentagon, we already know who the disinformationist are in the FBI and THEY will be held accountable, we have their names. It was only a hand full of FBI loyalist to Dick Cheney and there is proof, if people will just do the research they will see it is the same bunch of FBI agents who sold the OS to the Press, the American people, to FEMA, NIST and to the 911 commissioners.

reply to post by impressme

It looks to me that Seventh has exposed video tampering by pentagon official

Excuse me?

Ummm....that's a little bit like looking at photos of the Moon and seeing alien spaceships. Whatever object is in the lower right corner of the frames doesn't move because it isn't moving!!!

Claims of it being something are just that...claims. This has no substantial proof of any kind, unless you wish to squint, click your heels together three times and say "I believe".

I believe they didn’t want us to see the missal flying into the pentagon or there would have been no reason to tamper with the video in the first place.

Problem there is...over 100 people saw THE AIRPLANE hit the building. SAW THE AIRPLANE. not one person saw a missile. No missile fragments or components were found at the Pentagon. DNA from passengers identified as having been onboard American 77 WAS found at the Pentagon.

Trying hard to belive that is...well...spreading disinfo.

Ironic, isn't it? The 'truth movement' is ALL about disinfo, it seems......

reply to post by weedwhacker


As my time is very very limited atm WW I do not have tme for my usual heavy duty replies, you say 100 people saw the plane hit the Pentagon at the same time 85 CCTV cameras did not, again I will stress that whilst that plane spent minutes doing the 360 - 330 degree turn, no one thought of taking pictures on a day terrorists were hijacking planes and flying them into important places, yet as soon as the plane hit we have bucketfuls of photos, does not add up and never will.

In the mean time as your video flaw spotting seems very good, explain this.....

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bdaf1dd312fc.jpg[/atsimg]

/cheers.

reply to post by Seventh

85 CCTV cameras did not

Please explain exactly where each camera was located and pointed, and frame capture rates.

...again I will stress that whilst that plane spent minutes doing the 360 - 330 degree turn...

There was no reason for a casual observer on the ground to notice such a thing, given the fairly normal speed, and the large turn radius ooops, should have been diameter (~4+ miles)

ATC (National Tower) was beginning to notice, but of course only on radar as a primary target. They were unsure of airplane type, asked the C-130 pilot to look, and visually identify it. They also had NO altitude information. They asked the C-130 pilot to estimate its altitude...which is done simply by comparing to one's own altitude, and making an educated guess.

All in the space of time encompassing about three minutes, at the most. There were bystanders, first to know what was likely going to happen, and there certainly was no time to do anything about it.

...yet as soon as the plane hit we have bucketfuls of photos...

? Well, of course AFTER the impact, attention is now focused there. Same as in NYC.

"Bin Laden" photos? Not really sure what's the point. He's dead --- or still alive. Wasn't opne of his many "deputies" ultimately determined to be the real 'mastermind'?? Bin Laden just has deep pockets, and deep hatred.

AND the connections to the Bush family, via the Saudis....I'd look for more conspiracies there, rather than blurry video minutiae.....just me guess.

BECAUSE with dozens and dozens, now, of these conflicting "theories" and "scenarios", some more outlandish than others, I think a cleqaringhouse effort should be made, to discard the most obviously dumb ideas, and outline where all search efforts should be focused.

But, so many are so emotionally invested in their pet theories, doubt anything substantive will ever happen.




[edit on 28 September 2009 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker


No WW not just a picture of Bin Laden but a still from the released Bin Laden ADMISSION tape the day we went to war in Afghanistan, the emphasis on admission there, have to have the general public`s agreement on carpet bombing woman and children, and as would be the case of having no evidence against, as what they said happened did not (more than reflected by the F.B.I. most wanted for 9/11) for this war, then they duly manufactured some evidence and released in perfect timing with the invasion of Afghanistan..

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b58a38b80d6a.jpg[/atsimg]

Some mind boggling statements from fake Bin Laden where he knew the affects of two planes hitting the towers, whereas everyone whom designed them did not (any court cases arose from this obvious - gross negligence and incompetence causing the deaths of three thousand people, directed at the architects and engineers?).

So Bin Laden knew the fuel gas would cause the floors around impact to give way and cause the above floors to collapse, and no one else whom designed these buildings or anyone else knew this would happen!!!!!!.

Get real lol.

EDIT: Added the whole frame that got clipped...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f414a1f2063f.jpg[/atsimg]

[edit on 28-9-2009 by Seventh]

reply to post by Seventh


Are you referring to this?:

On December 9, 2001 U.S. military forces in Jalalabad found a video tape of bin Laden. On December 13, 2001, the United States State Department released a video tape apparently showing Osama bin Laden speaking with Khaled al-Harbi and other associates, somewhere in Afghanistan, before the U.S. invasion had driven the Taliban regime from Kandahar. The State Department stated that the tape was captured by U.S. forces in Afghanistan during a raid on a house in Jalalabad. The tape was aired with an accompanying English translation. In this translation, Osama bin Laden displays knowledge of the timing of the actual attack a few days in advance; the translation attributes the following lines to bin Laden:

"we calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all...We had notification since the previous Thursday that the event would take place that day. We had finished our work that day and had the radio on...Muhammad (Atta) from the Egyptian family (meaning the Al Qaida Egyptian group), was in charge of the group...The brothers, who conducted the operation, all they knew was that they have a martyrdom operation and we asked each of them to go to America but they didn't know anything about the operation, not even one letter. But they were trained and we did not reveal the operation to them until they are there and just before they boarded the planes."

On December 20, 2001, German TV channel "Das Erste" broadcast its analysis of the White House's translation of the videotape. On the program "Monitor", two independent translators and an expert on oriental studies found the White House's translation to be both inaccurate and manipulative stating "At the most important places where it is held to prove the guilt of bin Laden, it is not identical with the Arabic" and that the words used that indicate foreknowledge can not be heard at all in the original cristian. Prof. Gernot Rotter, professor of Islamic and Arabic Studies at the Asia-Africa Institute at the University of Hamburg said "The American translators who listened to the tapes and transcribed them apparently wrote a lot of things in that they wanted to hear but that cannot be heard on the tape no matter how many times you listen to it."

Some members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth believe that the man in this videotape is not Osama bin Laden at all, citing differences in weight and facial features, along with his wearing of a gold ring, which is forbidden by Muslim law, and using his right hand, although he is left-handed.

The transcript and video is located at youtube.com...

en.wikipedia.org.../13.2C_2001


After (possibly) having been caught with their pants down -- and realizing their arrogance in ignoring valid warnings of the threat from friendly intelligence sources, and wishing to use this event to begin (to escalate or move ahead) a pre-planned Iraqi operation (that they were going to want, anyway...this gave them a "reason") did they manufacture a fake "bin Laden" interview tape?

See....THERE, right there....!!

Wanna conspiracy, start there. December, 2001.

See if there is a way to work backwards to connect those dots.

Probably will get better results than the current strategy. Just my guess.

(After what we've seen of the Bush Administration's lies and ineptitude the last eight years...this is a far more likely scenario than any incredibly complex "False Flag" intentional attack...one that STILL has no solid evidence of actually being a "False Flag". I surely hope that this would be a way to "get" Bush, Cheney --- Karl Rove, et al.)

Boy, NOW am I in trouble!!!!!!!!! If I disappear, you'll know why.

LOL!!!!!

Originally posted by turbofan
I wonder what the Pentagon would say about their video after seeing this?

I wonder what the Pentagon would say about a non-original hyper-truncated slice of their "video" being analyzed by an amateur sleuthanologist with a heavy bias towards wanting to see Bush and Co. do the frog walk across the south lawn backed up by a cockpit full of Sky Kings who don't have clue one about published departures or aeronautical issues.

They would laugh their rears off.

Seriously. I know you think you are *making a difference* here, and far be it from me to harsh your little fantasy, but look at the big picture. Back out to a geosynchronous point so you can see the entire picture. Do you *really* think anyone in the Pentagon really give a flying leap about ATS? your post? your "analysis"? TF's support for your as-TOUDNING find? CIT? PfT? Any of you people? If you do, take another hit off that bong and everytyhing will be fine.......mmmmmmm.

[edit on 28-9-2009 by trebor451]