Where is the Full Length Pentagon Video OF 911?

reply to post by SimontheMagus

In the five frames, whatever that thing is that any idiot can tell is not a 757,

If there isn't enough data to determine it is a 757 how can you say with confidence there is enough data to tell what it is not?

You still have to disprove each and every witness.
You still have to disprove the C130 pilot that followed the crash in.
You still have to disprove each and every passenger.
You still have to disprove the radar data.
You still have to disprove the blackbox data.
You still have to disprove the aircraft debris.

I don't mean speculate about these last points I mean disprove each one completely.
After 10.5 years not one person has done anything close. You are no exception.

reply to post by SimontheMagus

My son's elementary school would have caught it on camera, from whatever angle it came from. But not the Pentagon.

Your sons school had cameras recording the sky back in 2001? I don't think so.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by SimontheMagus

 

My son's elementary school would have caught it on camera, from whatever angle it came from. But not the Pentagon.

Your sons school had cameras recording the sky back in 2001? I don't think so.

Oh my God is there ANYTHING you won't obfuscate into some ridiculous nonsense?

I meant if the "plane" had hit the school.

Obviously this is all you have left, childlike garbage.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by SimontheMagus

 

In the five frames, whatever that thing is that any idiot can tell is not a 757,

If there isn't enough data to determine it is a 757 how can you say with confidence there is enough data to tell what it is not?

Because it is TOO SMALL. A vertical stabilizer not even HALF THE SIZE. A 757 could not have hidden behind the box. The nose would have been sticking way out in front because of where the tail was. The frames between the box and the building were edited out. What is so difficult to understand about that?

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by thegameisup
how can you call it a 'hoax'.

Because it's a hoax.

The aeriel footage was shot in 2006.

video.google.com...#

Truthers swallow it HOOK LINE & SINKER.

that is the DUMBEST name to call someone, truther, ok lets start by defining it. someone who belives the truth? id like to think we all believe the truth, its just a matter of whether or not weve been told the truth yet or if its been proven to our liking yet.

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
the 16 foot hole on the other side of six walls,

You might want to double check your facts there.

This is getting really old. Stop wasting my time with your nonsense.




As for your debris, we've seen that planted crap before. None of it was in front of the impact point where it should have been. And this video makes it all a moot point anyway....

www.citizeninvestigationteam.com...

You need a new script. This one is a stale rerun.

edit on 9-7-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

Hi Simon,

I was wondering why should debris be in front of the impact point?

reply to post by SimontheMagus

Because it is TOO SMALL. A vertical stabilizer not even HALF THE SIZE. A 757 could not have hidden behind the box. The nose would have been sticking way out in front because of where the tail was. The frames between the box and the building were edited out. What is so difficult to understand about that?

Do you know the Make, Model and resolution of the camera used?
Do you know the size and f setting of the lens used on the camera?
Do you know the Make, Model and resolution of the recording device used?

If not then how can you determine that the data in the 5 frames represents everything that was physically there at that time?

You are jumping to conclusions based on your own speculation.

You need to prove that that camera and other equipment could have recorded the entire plane given the circumstances at the time.

Originally posted by Dizrael

that is the DUMBEST name to call someone, truther, ok lets start by defining it. someone who belives the truth? id like to think we all believe the truth, its just a matter of whether or not weve been told the truth yet or if its been proven to our liking yet.

Thanks for sharing that with me, Truther.

Can you explain to us why are truthers so gullible ? And why they still continue to believe bad information long after it has been proven to be incorrect ?

SimontheMagus still believes there are frames missing from the pentagon video. He has no reason to believe this, and yet he still does.

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by Dizrael

that is the DUMBEST name to call someone, truther, ok lets start by defining it. someone who belives the truth? id like to think we all believe the truth, its just a matter of whether or not weve been told the truth yet or if its been proven to our liking yet.

Thanks for sharing that with me, Truther.

Can you explain to us why are truthers so gullible ? And why they still continue to believe bad information long after it has been proven to be incorrect ?

SimontheMagus still believes there are frames missing from the pentagon video. He has no reason to believe this, and yet he still does.

now hold on a minute. i never said WHAT i believed. you can call me a truther all you want. im going to believe what i find the most "truth" behind it. just like you. truther.

reply to post by waypastvne

SimontheMagus still believes there are frames missing from the pentagon video. He has no reason to believe this, and yet he still does.

Perhaps he's too young to have experienced the slow recording methods used before digital.
I have personally repaired this type of equipment.
1,2,5 frames per second with a modified VHS recorder. It allowed days between changing tapes instead of hours.
And when you combine 4, 6 or even 8 cameras on one 4:3 picture your resolution goes the s##t.

Originally posted by Dizraelnow hold on a minute. i never said WHAT i believed. you can call me a truther all you want. im going to believe what i find the most "truth" behind it. just like you. truther.

Not sure why folks consider truther a bad name. I'm a truther and quite proud of it.

Originally posted by InhaleExhale

Hi Simon,

I was wondering why should debris be in front of the impact point?

If a raccoon gets hit by a car, does the body disappear? Or is there roadkill??

I can't believe I have to explain why we should see evidence of a 757 after it allegedly hits a building. Especially now that we know it was only traveling at about 150 knots.

Exhibit A, right after impact:



Exhibit B, after collapse, about 30 minutes after impact:




Do you see a 757?

I don't see a 757.

So let's see now.... no 757 in the five frames, and no 757 in front of the building after impact.

And we're not supposed to ask where the hell is the 757?

If you see a 757 please point it out to me.

Because there is no goddamm 757....

I'm gonna take some shrooms and try and see a 757...

Then I'll try some '___'...

Will get back to you if I see a 757.

In the meantime, if you find the 757 please let me know.

Thanks.

In view of the fact that documentaries have focused on the attack on the Trade Towers (though not Trade Center building 7, which is another story) and the crash in Pennsylvania, it is more than mystifying that a documentary has not been made on the Pentagon attack.
"Assault on the Heart of America's Defense" is a natural and no-brainer for hungry TV networks eager for ratings. But we're nearly 11 years out from the event. And, so far, nothing.
You don't have to be a cynic to ask, "Why not?" The Pentagon attack is a huge story, one that demands such a telling. Where is it? If it's not in the making, why not?

Originally posted by Edword
In view of the fact that documentaries have focused on the attack on the Trade Towers (though not Trade Center building 7, which is another story) and the crash in Pennsylvania, it is more than mystifying that a documentary has not been made on the Pentagon attack.
"Assault on the Heart of America's Defense" is a natural and no-brainer for hungry TV networks eager for ratings. But we're nearly 11 years out from the event. And, so far, nothing.
You don't have to be a cynic to ask, "Why not?" The Pentagon attack is a huge story, one that demands such a telling. Where is it? If it's not in the making, why not?

National Geographic did one already. You must have missed it. Not sure if you are aware of it, but they had staff and students on that plane.

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
Especially now that we know it was only traveling at about 150 knots.

WOW thats only about 5 knots above flaps up stall speed. He was a good pilot.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by SimontheMagus

 

My son's elementary school would have caught it on camera, from whatever angle it came from. But not the Pentagon.

Your sons school had cameras recording the sky back in 2001? I don't think so.

Since the Dunblane Massacre in 1996, UK schools increased their security measures.

This school in the link below had one installed post-Dunblane (2001) for vandalism, but after the Dunblane incident in 1996, uk schools gradually introduced CCTV.

CCTV was available back then you know!

www.yorkpress.co.uk..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> www.yorkpress.co.uk...

So the all powerful governemnt that is capable of fooling thousands of people with airplane like missiles is not capable of producing a phony video?

reply to post by hooper


Plane like missile? No, you're confused, the plane, which flew over, as shown in the CIT's impartial investigation, and the offending missile, were different objects.

Some of you obviously have not noticed that " no plane at the Pentagon " has become a discredited fringe of a fringe in the truther camp. See for example this article by a serious truther :-

reply to post by Alfie1


He lists the downed light poles as "proof" of an airliner as "eyewitnesses" say so, even though the taxi driver of the cab that was struck by one of the poles was a fraud, and the FDR does not match that path. Of course, no mention of the previous two issues in that link.

Originally posted by Morg234
He lists the downed light poles as "proof" of an airliner as "eyewitnesses" say so, even though the taxi driver of the cab that was struck by one of the poles was a fraud, ...

No he is not.

Originally posted by Morg234
... and the FDR does not match that path.

Yes it does.

Journal of 911 Studies

Originally posted by Morg234Of course, no mention of the previous two issues in that link.

Because they are not issues.

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
I can't believe I have to explain why we should see evidence of a 757 after it allegedly hits a building. Especially now that we know it was only traveling at about 150 knots.

Since the stall speed of a clean B-757 is about 160 KIAS, YOU FAIL!

You have no clue and if you were a normal intelligent adult you'd be embarrassed virtually every time you post...