RTE news about 9/11 clip

Black_Couch

THey said it was only released 3 hours ago?

I saw that months ago on that conspiracy video, the deceptions one. THats what the whole conspiracy was about. THat they confiscated cctv in the area. and that the bollard at the entrance is in the way. Plus the grainy pictures. Anybody else see this?

aidan_walsh

"Wheres Tunaman".

DublinWriter

Black_Couch wrote:

THey said it was only released 3 hours ago?

I saw that months ago on that conspiracy video, the deceptions one. THats what the whole conspiracy was about. THat they confiscated cctv in the area. and that the bollard at the entrance is in the way. Plus the grainy pictures. Anybody else see this?

Yes, and was thinking the exact same thing.

What's new with this?

DOLEMAN

I can't see any plane hitting the Pentagon.

snickerpuss

Yeah i thought those were the old ones i seen a few months ago.

5uspect

according to sky news you can see a nose cone in the frame before the explosion...

Edit: actually if you go to CNN.com you can watch the video and if you watch carefully you can see something white move across from right to left at ground level.

DOLEMAN

5uspect wrote:

according to sky news you can see a nose cone in the frame before the explosion...

Nose cone of a... ???

Sizzler

Tell you what if anybody can see a 757 hit the pentagon in this clip then they must be on magic mushrooms cos all I can see is some sneaky little rocket type thing a few foot above the ground.

I dont think tom cruise in his heyday in top gun could have attempted such a maneouvre to get a commercial jetliner 10 ft off the ground to slam straight into a buiding.

FYI the jet that is alleged to have crashed into it is about the size of several 3 bed semis....so can someone please show me where this jet is in the video please???

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/16/pentagon.video/index.html

Astro1996

nearly 5 years on, no disrespect, wheres the plane? this does not show anything, what about the gas station and the hotel cctv?

So Glad

DOLEMAN wrote:

Nose cone of a... ???

From the one single frame that we were given out of three cameras, I can only see a thin white object that, I believe, does not look like a 757 but more like a smaller plane or missle. It is basically a mislabled farce. It is not a video and there is no plane. Doesn't prove anything.

Dave!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9hVc_XdRXE&search=pentagon%20video

There's the video. I don't see a plane.

crosstownk

I've seen quite a few months ago. Raises a few questions, imo.

Yook

Oh cmon people, IT WAS A ****ING MISSLE! How people are stupid enough to believe otherwise is beyond me. I mean it takes 5 years to release a possible nose cone??!!?

Its a simple as this, if they dont release all information about an incident, then there was obviously something to hide.

DublinWriter

Yook wrote:

Oh cmon people, IT WAS A ****ING MISSLE!

Nope, it was a Global Hawk UAV unmanned 'plane.

One of the official pics show one of the intact undercarriage in the debris. It's too small to be from a 737 (it's shown beside a fireman) and displays the trademark 'teardrop' holes around the edge of the wheels.

Yook

DublinWriter wrote:

Nope, it was a Global Hawk UAV unmanned 'plane.

One of the official pics show one of the intact undercarriage in the debris. It's too small to be from a 737 (it's shown beside a fireman) and displays the trademark 'teardrop' holes around the edge of the wheels.

Well if its too small to be a 737 then its definitley to small to be from a 757

edit:

Also, (continuint from my previous post) is it not a little funny that it hit the only side of the pentigon that was built to withstand an attack of this magnitude.

BrenC

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=911+loose

its a really good documentary, watch the first ten minutes anyway

dubtom

I couldn't see any plane, strange though, was that a second explosion about a minute after the first. Would have thought that all the fuel would have burnt off by then. Maybe it's the camera angle, but by the end of the video it just seems like an ordinary fire. When you think of the damage that both planes did to the towers, fire's raging for over an hour and the eventual collaspe, this video I think will only add to the conspiracy theories.

Yook

BrenC wrote:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=911+loose

its a really good documentary, watch the first ten minutes anyway

I posted the Moussaoui Trial Thread, maybe you should have a read

So Glad

dubtom wrote:

I couldn't see any plane, strange though, was that a second explosion about a minute after the first. Would have thought that all the fuel would have burnt off by then. Maybe it's the camera angle, but by the end of the video it just seems like an ordinary fire. When you think of the damage that both planes did to the towers, fire's raging for over an hour and the eventual collaspe, this video I think will only add to the conspiracy theories.

True. I am just waiting for the other videos to be released.

segadreamcast

LMAO, and people say the internet is full of hacks... let's go slowly:

(Some of these comments are also taken from the "where's tunaman" thread)

"meh, what was ther epoint showing this? to prove it was a plane?"
No. They were *obliged* to release it because it was *requested* under the Freedom of Information Act.

"september the 12th and the time 17:00?"
Well now if they were going to fake it, why wouldn't they reset the time? Clearly the time is just wrong, and by being wrong, it probably shows that they weren't gonna risk altering a thing on it - because it would give the conspiracy nutjobs some fodder. Another reason why the clock is obviously wrong? Well, as we all know, at 16:59 on September 12th, there was still a big hole in the building. Same for 16:58 too. Clock was wrong. It happens. Get over it.

"There's the video. I don't see a plane."
Might be to do with the frame rate, which seems to be in the region of 15fps (standard for CCTV) and, you know, the plane travelling at 300km?!? Of course it would be a blur. Hell, a kid on a bike would come out slightly blurry with that kind of stuff.

" is about the size of several 3 bed semis"
...? In terms of height? Yeeee, no. In terms of length/overall capacity? Yes, again though, I'll talk slower: when big things are travelling quickly, they're harder to see.

"Its a simple as this, if they dont release all information about an incident, then there was obviously something to hide."
There was a trial on! If they released this, which was some of the evidence, they would have been setting themselves up for a mistrial? Would you like to have seen that guy go free?

Yook

NoelRock wrote:

"Its a simple as this, if they dont release all information about an incident, then there was obviously something to hide."
There was a trial on! If they released this, which was some of the evidence, they would have been setting themselves up for a mistrial? Would you like to have seen that guy go free?

If he's simply a skapegoat, yes.

Elessar

There is no 757 in that video.

Mainly because it was not a 757 that hit it.

Peteee

DaveMcG wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9hVc_XdRXE&search=pentagon%20video

There's the video. I don't see a plane.

Because thats a terrible clip

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

The one there is a bit better. You can see a long streak just before impact.

Not sure what to make it.

It's not a missile, missiles dont make big firery explosions. Course there wasn't much plane debris either.

Dave!

Peteee wrote:

Because thats a terrible clip

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

The one there is a bit better. You can see a long streak just before impact.

Not sure what to make it.

It's not a missile, missiles dont make big firery explosions. Course there wasn't much plane debris either.

ahh that's better, thought that the clip i posted was the one they released

still not sure what to make of it...

DOLEMAN

If it was a missile/whatever that hit the Pentagon, what happened to the plane which was supposed to have hit it?

Was the plane empty?
Where are the people who were on the plane??
Where is the plane???

/i see a tv show in this...

solas

I'm not too interested in getting caught up ithe conspiracy of whether it was a plane or not, tho I do believe the US Admin are getting away with murder.
The release of this propaganda seems to be filling a void where more serious issues should be highlighted, the current Plame affair and the possible indictment of both Karl Rove and Dick cheny, for instance are conveniently being kept under wraps.

On the topic at hand, of all the video information out there this one documents the most compelling evidence I've seen so far.

where is the plane ? all i can see is a white streak and thats more like a missile. wouldn't you think the Pentagon would have better CCTV cameras.

astrofool

Peteee wrote:

It's not a missile, missiles dont make big firery explosions. Course there wasn't much plane debris either.

If something made of aluminium hits something made of concrete at ~300km/h then the thing made of aluminum will be completely destroyed and unrecognisable. Think of a coke can left on the road as cars drive over it. Or pennies on a railway track.

zuutroy

astrofool wrote:

If something made of aluminium hits something made of concrete at ~300km/h then the thing made of aluminum will be completely destroyed and unrecognisable. Think of a coke can left on the road as cars drive over it. Or pennies on a railway track.

You're not comparing like with like at all there

OSiriS

This stuff has been over countless times. Before you start getting into consipracy theories at least aquaint yourselves with physics.

dubtom

This is all beginning to look like another JFK like case.If there is dirty dealings and cover ups going on, we will never know for sure. We'll probably be hearing about smoking missiles for years to come.What sickens me, whether it was a conspiracy or not, is that this whole thing has been used for certain high up people, people in power and goverment, to simply make money, whether they be involved in the companies that feed troops in Iraq or make weapons. It's not about democracy, or about having their countries interest at heart in going to war,to protect their people or to make the world a safer place, it's just money.

tunaman

NoelRock wrote:

LMAO, and people say the internet is full of hacks... let's go slowly:

(Some of these comments are also taken from the "where's tunaman" thread)

"meh, what was ther epoint showing this? to prove it was a plane?"
No. They were *obliged* to release it because it was *requested* under the Freedom of Information Act.

One of these videos had already been leaked to the press a few years ago, and the other from a slightly different angle shows nothing new. The muppet who apparently made them release the footage claims he did it to shut up all the conspiracy theorists and it now proves without any doubt flight 77 hit the pentagon, so there is no need for any of the other confiscated videos to be released.

Looks like he also believes the official story despite the lack of evidence.

"september the 12th and the time 17:00?"
Well now if they were going to fake it, why wouldn't they reset the time? Clearly the time is just wrong, and by being wrong, it probably shows that they weren't gonna risk altering a thing on it - because it would give the conspiracy nutjobs some fodder. Another reason why the clock is obviously wrong? Well, as we all know, at 16:59 on September 12th, there was still a big hole in the building. Same for 16:58 too. Clock was wrong. It happens. Get over it

You are the only person trying to claim these videos may be fake.

"There's the video. I don't see a plane."
Might be to do with the frame rate, which seems to be in the region of 15fps (standard for CCTV) and, you know, the plane travelling at 300km?!? Of course it would be a blur. Hell, a kid on a bike would come out slightly blurry with that kind of stuff.

So because the video is blurred that is proof?

"Its a simple as this, if they dont release all information about an incident, then there was obviously something to hide."
There was a trial on! If they released this, which was some of the evidence, they would have been setting themselves up for a mistrial? Would you like to have seen that guy go free?

They never even used the videos in the recent farce of a trial, so you have no arguement.

tunaman

OSiriS wrote:

This stuff has been over countless times. Before you start getting into consipracy theories at least aquaint yourselves with physics.

According to the experts it is physically impossible to fly a plane with the wingspan of a 757 so low to the ground...

http://physics911.net/sagadevan.htm

That article also brings up many other valid questions.

You were saying?

zuutroy

tunaman wrote:

According to the experts it is physically impossible to fly a plane with the wingspan of a 757 so low to the ground...

http://physics911.net/sagadevan.htm

That article also brings up many other valid questions.

You were saying?

A lot of that stuff about the difficulty of sitting into the seat and orientating yourself is overstated. It really wouldnt be that tough if you'd done your homework. The aerodynamic stuff is spot on though. There's no way you could control a plane for any length of time at that speed and height

Kernel

zuutroy wrote:

A lot of that stuff about the difficulty of sitting into the seat and orientating yourself is overstated. It really wouldnt be that tough if you'd done your homework. The aerodynamic stuff is spot on though. There's no way you could control a plane for any length of time at that speed and height

I was listening to a John Lear (son of Lear jet inventor, and pilot with thousands of hours flight experience) interview on an old coast to coast, and he himself said there was no way a guy who recieved a few lessons in a Cessna or Piper could have controlled the plane against such lift and pulled off that manouvre.

911 in my opinion, is yet another Operation Northwoods orchestrated or at least allowed to happen by the current US government, influenced by globalist capitalist organisations or illuminati. There are too many questions raised by the whole incident, and too much circumstantial evidence pointing to something fishy. If you are in doubt that there have historically been secret organisations with an interest in controlling international political situations, then you haven't read your history. It's not a massive leap of conjecture to assume that such organisations still exist. The non-secret ones are called Bilderberg, Trilateral Comission and Council on Foreign Relations. Henry Kissinger and his realpolitik are heavily involved.

Katykaboom

DOLEMAN wrote:

If it was a missile/whatever that hit the Pentagon, what happened to the plane which was supposed to have hit it?

Was the plane empty?
Where are the people who were on the plane??
Where is the plane???

/i see a tv show in this...

Watch the loose change documentry. It warped my fragile little mind.

Archeron

Katykaboom wrote:

Watch the loose change documentry. It warped my fragile little mind.

where did you see this Katykaboom? Is it online or on DVD?

CoolGuy2006

firstly, the Pentagon is deceiving in Size, especially at that angle.

Having said that, the "Object" does look a bit small for a big plane but surley its way to big to be a missile. i mean, its a pretty big object and its fairly far away from the camera.



Also, Am i crazy. A day or two after the attacks i seem to remember footage on Skynews showing this crash happen. But not only that, i remember images of a plane, clear as day coming down and hitting the pentagon. It was a totally different angle from this clip. Anyone else have a memory of this. It wasnt a movie, more of a slide show, but it showed a plane. Maybe im crazy

OSiriS

According to the experts it is physically impossible to fly a plane with the wingspan of a 757 so low to the ground...

Really? So once all of these planes take off how do they land? The plane wasn't flown low to the ground anyway it was crashed into the ground.

kippy

9/11
There are at least two more threads in AH on this and countless more in the CT forum.
I dont think this warrants another.
Kippy

Louisiana

http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main

i got this a couple of months ago. it has some good shots of where the debris should have been, taken staight after the crash.

HelterSkelter

What' with SKY/FOX news and BBC reporting this video as definitively showing the 757 hitting the building? All I can see is a blur for a second. It is impossible to tell what it is. And this video is not new, I've seen it many times before.

ionapaul

I still don't understand IF 9/11 is a conspiracy AND two full sized jets were flown into the Twin Towers (don't think anyone is casting doubt on this, are they?) WHY would the conspiracy operators use a missile to hit the Pentagon? Why not fly another jet into it? It boggles the mind why they would go to the trouble with the Twin Towers but not the Pentagon...obviously no expense or trouble was spared from the effort, right?

kippy

Aidan_Walsh has already posted a link to the another thread on it - where I am sure all the information/links/theories etc have already been discussed:
And here is another thread in AH which was posted a few days ago....
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=51365086#post51365086


I would recommend reading and adding anything new that you would like to add to the existing threads on this event.

RedPlanet

ionapaul wrote:

I still don't understand IF 9/11 is a conspiracy AND two full sized jets were flown into the Twin Towers (don't think anyone is casting doubt on this, are they?) WHY would the conspiracy operators use a missile to hit the Pentagon? Why not fly another jet into it? It boggles the mind why they would go to the trouble with the Twin Towers but not the Pentagon...obviously no expense or trouble was spared from the effort, right?

I don't know ionapaul, but maybe the "hawks" in the pentegon weren't confident that a passenger jet would penetrate the reininforced bunker (Pentagon) well enough to elimate the right "doves" inside. Or maybe the logistics to hijack 3 jetliners was such a nightmare that hijacking a 4th was just impossible. Or maybe the missile was simply just handy, or maybe this particular strike was a bonus, tacked-on at the last minute.

It's like asking why would they choose the grassy knoll for assassinating JFK.
Are we supposed to be mind readers?

kippy

And there is also a thread here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=51387199#post51387199
About that video which is also gone into the whole conspiracy theory thingy.

HelterSkelter

ionapaul wrote:

I still don't understand IF 9/11 is a conspiracy AND two full sized jets were flown into the Twin Towers (don't think anyone is casting doubt on this, are they?) WHY would the conspiracy operators use a missile to hit the Pentagon? Why not fly another jet into it? It boggles the mind why they would go to the trouble with the Twin Towers but not the Pentagon...obviously no expense or trouble was spared from the effort, right?

Well one of the conspiracy theories suggest that the planes that went into the twin towers were not normal commercial airliners. They point out some weird things from the footage, the most interesting being a small explosion at the front of both planes before they hit the towers. They also note shadows underneath the plane and suggest that something is attached to it. That point is open to more debate but as for the small explosions before the planes hit the towers, it is very easy to see, especially on the first plane. They point out the abnormalities and leave it to you to draw your own conclusions.

Alun

As pointed out on another thread, have any of you seen the Pentagon, I mean, in real life? It's absolutely massive. A quick measuremant using Google Earth makes it about 285m per side. A Boeing 757's wingspan is a mere 38m, the fuselage section, that would do most of the damage is a mere 4m wide. Add to that that the Pentgaon is not your average office building, and is massively reinforced and strengthened, and any plane of that, relatively small, size wouldn't stand a chance.

See http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html

skywalker

Katykaboom wrote:

Watch the loose change documentry. It warped my fragile little mind.

Only watched it last week funnily enough, definitely agreee with the sentiment.

And to whoever asked where to see it, theres a link earlier in this thread to it on google video.