Wheres Tunaman

SpAcEd OuT

This should shut up Tunaman for awhile and all the other conspiracists

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50234

aidan_walsh

Nah, they'll all cry that it was doctored.

Kernel

In fairness, that's a very conservative and biased website, but we'll await the video....

Ciaran500

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4987716.stm

Click link under image, unfortunatley its not as clear as day that it was a plane that hit so we're still going to hear the theories.

So Glad

Oh holy christ people........IT'S NOT A VIDEO! Again it is a collection of frames, one of which shows a slender white object. What about the rest? Why does the video say september the 12th and the time 17:00? For christ sake...

What about the other VIDEOS. Freedom of information my arse.

Gone West

bleh.
that is all I have to say about this.

Dirk Gently

something tells me you haven't seen the last of tunaman, that "video" was less than convincing.
I reckon if anything were gonna see more tunamen after the release of that video.

So Glad

clown bag wrote:

something tells me you haven't seen the last of tunaman, that "video" was less than convincing.
I reckon if anything were gonna see more tunamen after the release of that video.

And me. This has given me more reason to keep on talking and pissing people off about it. And I have good evidence to back it now.

Ciaran500

Its not evidence for either case.

EDIT: The BBC article says its the first video, is there more due?

So Glad

Ciaran500 wrote:

Its not evidence for either case.

EDIT: The BBC article says its the first video, is there more due?

Oh, thats good. Maybe the next video will be better? Hope so.

Ciaran500

http://today.reuters.com/tv/videoStory.aspx?isSummitStory=false&storyId=5b7ac227fc84c39ad6c11eca7cc8d397dd5770da

Two videos up here (one after the other) its fomr a similar angle and isn't as conclusive as I was hoping

GrumPy

Ciaran500 wrote:

http://today.reuters.com/tv/videoStory.aspx?isSummitStory=false&storyId=5b7ac227fc84c39ad6c11eca7cc8d397dd5770da

Two videos up here (one after the other) its fomr a similar angle and isn't as conclusive as I was hoping

meh, what was ther epoint showing this? to prove it was a plane? I deffo didnt see any sign of anything nearly like a plane :rolleyes: I saw a thin white line, thats all.

SpAcEd OuT

jesus i stand corrected what was so diffrent about that video

Dirk Gently

yeah, for some reason when I heard the video was going to show a plane crashing into the pentagon I thought it was actually going to show a plane. Hard to believe the most secure place in the world hasn't got video footage of what happened.

One of the reasons I doubt the official story is because on the day it happened I was in work (that’s my alibi ) listening to it all on the radio and various live radio reports on sep 11 2001 said their were witness who seen a helicopter right before the explosion. There was a lot of confusion in the reports with some suggesting the helicopter was attempting to block the plane from hitting the pentagon. I never heard anymore about that helicopter since the original live reports I heard while at work.

The vanishing helicopter and the unbelievable lack of physical evidence that a plane crash actually happened, lack of video evidence, the location of the supposed crash in the most fortified section of the building, the official line that the plane vaporised and yet the bodies were all still there is just a little much to believe.

If this video was suppose to put all these questions to rest then it has failed in my opinion.

Dave!

clown bag wrote:

yeah, for some reason when I heard the video was going to show a plane crashing into the pentagon I thought it was actually going to show a plane. Hard to believe the most secure place in the world hasn't got video footage of what happened.

One of the reasons I doubt the official story is because on the day it happened I was in work (that’s my alibi ) listening to it all on the radio and various live radio reports on sep 11 2001 said their were witness who seen a helicopter right before the explosion. There was a lot of confusion in the reports with some suggesting the helicopter was attempting to block the plane from hitting the pentagon. I never heard anymore about that helicopter since the original live reports I heard while at work.

The vanishing helicopter and the unbelievable lack of physical evidence that a plane crash actually happened, lack of video evidence, the location of the supposed crash in the most fortified section of the building, the official line that the plane vaporised and yet the bodies were all still there is just a little much to believe.

If this video was suppose to put all these questions to rest then it has failed in my opinion.

it's done worse -- stirred up more controversy, and given conspiracy theorists more fuel. it's made me more sceptical, that's for sure.

segadreamcast

clown bag wrote:

yeah, for some reason when I heard the video was going to show a plane crashing into the pentagon I thought it was actually going to show a plane. Hard to believe the most secure place in the world hasn't got video footage of what happened.

One of the reasons I doubt the official story is because on the day it happened I was in work (that’s my alibi ) listening to it all on the radio and various live radio reports on sep 11 2001 said their were witness who seen a helicopter right before the explosion. There was a lot of confusion in the reports with some suggesting the helicopter was attempting to block the plane from hitting the pentagon. I never heard anymore about that helicopter since the original live reports I heard while at work.

The vanishing helicopter and the unbelievable lack of physical evidence that a plane crash actually happened, lack of video evidence, the location of the supposed crash in the most fortified section of the building, the official line that the plane vaporised and yet the bodies were all still there is just a little much to believe.

If this video was suppose to put all these questions to rest then it has failed in my opinion.

People screw up on live reports. Hell, even on a matter as simple as the bus rampage last week, Newstalk 106 had eyewitnesses calling in, and between the five of them, nobody could give a conclusive coherent story. One of them stated that he was going towards town, with the next caller directly contradicting and saying he was going away from town etc. Often in such instances, people get confused and presume everything is related to the main story at hand. In other cases, people calling in simply like to feel "empowered" by having information that nobody else has - even if that information is, how shall we say, stretching the truth.

Ultimately though, confusion reigns supreme in live 'eyewitness' situations. Now multiply the confusion factor by 100, and you begin to get a picture of what it was like to be on the ground on 9/11. Thus, the lesson here: don't trust eyewitness reports so much - as well intentioned as the people may be, they're often poor storytellers and are simply overwhelmed by the sensation of the event to give an accurate, objective account of the situation.

tunaman

SpAcEd OuT wrote:

jesus i stand corrected what was so diffrent about that video

At least you are man enough to admit that video is a ridiculous attempt to prove flight 77 hit the pentagon, so I'll let you away with jumping to conclusions. That however is exactly what most people have done without even looking at all the evidence, most of which completely contradicts the official version.

Like I have been saying for awhile now there really is no hard evidence to support the official story, especially when they claim this video is the absolute proof to shut up anybody who questions the events of 9/11.

All this really does though is distract from the real problem with the official story, which is just how weak the theory that fire caused the collapse of those 3 buildings.

Here is what an explosives expert had to say when asked what he thought...

http://www.world-action.co.uk/explosives.html

"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the
airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some
explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the
towers to collapse," Romero said. Romero is a former
director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing
Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and
the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and
other structures.

As for WTC 7 there is a very good reason that the so called collapse of that building was only ever shown once. Until I saw loose change I had never even seen any of the incredibly damning footage, which IMO speaks volumes.

Beer is Life

They said in that BBC report that on the second camara you can see the plane "skidding along the ground". But looking at the photos of the aftermath I dont remember seeing any skid marks on the lawn