Do you see any PLANE in that tape?????

[partylessinOhio]

I do NOT.

Add: Sorry, I got so angry about DOJ duping the public again with the release of the tape supposedly of the plane hitting the Pentagon.

There is no image of a plane on the tape. There is a strange white area that remains stationary some feet from the building at the ground level. There is fire and smoke coming out of the building.

Tell me if you see more.

[opihimoimoi]

1. ???? What Plane??? Where....? Tape???

[partylessinOhio]

2. Sorry, should have added, on FOX now

Video is being shown over and over NOW on FOX.

[meegbear]

4. You mean the 9/11 tape of the plane hitting the Pentagon?

Be nice if you could be specific about these things.

[Search Party]

5. Is the word

"Remember" flashing on and off, too?:sarcasm:

[ElsewheresDaughter]

3. nope and WTF is that white clare in the middle of the video???...never saw

[marmar]

6. All that tape is going to do is make people more suspicious.

:tinfoilhat:

[Avalux]

7. Please tell us what you DID see -

I'm not near a television and can't get in to Judicial Watch's site to view - thanks. :hi:

[partylessinOhio]

13. I apologize, here is what I saw.

There is no image of a plane on the tape. There is a strange white area that remains stationary some feet from the building at the ground level. There is fire and smoke coming out of the building.

I expected to be shown an actual plane flying through the air and then hitting the Pentagon. This is a real "snow job."

[LeftNYC]

17. yup...nothing...no plane...nt

[Avalux]

18. One more question -

is it a video or a series of still photos?? I expected as much, and it will only serve to raise more questions. I want to see the video from the security camera at the Sheraton that the FBI confiscated.

[myzenthing]

73. still photos

It is a series of still photos. There are more frames than were visible in the previous video.
I still cannot see a 757. Whatever it was was seemed to be skimming just inches off the ground...

[longship]

8. Context! Context!! Context!!!!

Most of us are not mindreaders, at least with the distances and pseudo-anonimity of these forums. So either give us your location, identity so we can point our mind-reading rays at you...

Or, provide us some context so that we know of what you are writing about.

Sheesh!
:eyes:

[enlightenment]

9. Now, now -- have you misplaced your

"I'm a believer" red/white/blue tinted glasses? You know you can't watch the news without them blocking your ability to think.

:crazy:

[tridim]

10. Am I in some alternate universe?

I'm not seeing anything on any of the fake news channels Re: a plane hitting the Pentagon.

[JeffR]

11. ..

The scales have fallen from my eyes...

[LeftNYC]

12. Man this is ridiculous...

i saw nothing that i didnt see before. This should get the 9/11 truthies laughing at best. they dont even need to disprove this. Its nothing.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

14. they should have shown somwething like this clip ...made on a PC......

by a friend named merc ...he is good no?

hahaha

[karlrschneider]

34. Of course...if they were going to bother to phony something up

it would be something very much like that!
:eyes:

[DemInDistress]

75. that's good !! excellent !! great work !! I love it,

the best yet,now why couldn't the bush crime family (rumsfeld division) release that in the first place? Why?
Because it didn't happen. No commercial jet hit the Pentagon. A Global Hawk disguised as a small commuter place painted with AA logo's plowed into the Pentagon.
Still, that was a fine "photo shop" effort by your friend "merc"

Thanks.

One more thing..follow the roof line of the Pentagon. Look past the mid-point and tell me what you see. I see the building has already collapsed and this is before the missile strikes the building, follow the roof line down the photo's and get back to me..

[mirandapriestly]

125. Makes one realize how ridiculous the plane really is

I sort of accepted the Pentagon plane before, now I totally doubt it after I see they can't release the real footage.

[LeftNYC]

15. even the guy with the no neck on Fox is saying you

cant see a plane clearly...

[longship]

16. Who needs a video?

Complaining about the lack of video is a straw man.

The chain of evidence for flight 77 hitting the Pentagon is complete. Those claiming otherwise are totally ignoring the most compelling evidence, the eyewitnesses who number in the hundreds. After all, this happened at rush hour on a weekday. The Pentagon is within short distance of three major DC area thoroughfares. The commuters on those highways *all* saw an airliner.

Paul Begala was one of the eyewitnesses. But I suppose he's just another one of those Chimp administration conspirators. How about the rest of the hundreds? People cannot dismiss these accounts with hand-waving or cherry-picking.

Sorry, folks. You can't dismiss the eyewitness accounts by screeching about a video.

Get over it. Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

[reichstag911]

19. Yeah, but...but...

...eyewitness identification is notoriously unreliable! :hide:

[longship]

21. Only individual reports are unreliable.

The concensus opinion is very reliable.

Many of the people on those roads were people who had experience to know what kind of plane they saw. Others, people just like you and me, just saw an airliner, or misidentified it as some other kind of airliner. After all a 737 and a 757 have basically the same layout--one engine on each wing, etc. Remember, this thing was flying at about 550 mph, or more. Witnesses would not have previous experience with seeing a large plane flying that low at that speed, so that variances in their reports is understandable. However, *all* of them identified it as an airliner.

The conclusion is inescapable. There was a large airliner flying very low and very fast in the immediate vicinity of the Pentagon on the morning of 9/11 at the same time that Flight 77 disappeared and the same time that something collided with the Pentagon. Many of the eyewitnesses actually saw the plane hit. Many others, without direct view, heard the collision at the same time the plane dove toward the ground. These accounts are consistent *only* with the *fact* that Flight 77 collided with the Pentagon on that morning.

But the tin foil mad hatters can only screech about some silly video.

[reichstag911]

24. Thanks for...

...your well thought-out and written response, but I was jes' extrapolating from the American "justice" system to this, and makin' a funny.

:crazy::freak:

[longship]

25. And a good one, too.

Many people have little sense of humor about this stuff. Actually, I find them humorous in a perverted way.
;-)

[petgoat]

38. Your "Screech about some silly video" is anything but objective

It's not "some silly video", it's evcidence that has been suppressed for almost five
years despite years of people screeching for its release.

The eyewitness accounts are not consistent *only* with any *assertion* that flight 77
hit the Pentagon. There were several accounts of smaller planes.

[TomClash]

86. Does that mean that the scores of witnesses

who heard shots come from the grassy knoll were actually right?

Just askin'

[dchill]

88. "The concensus opinion is very reliable."

Get a grip. The consensus of opinion has been shaped by a notoriously unreliable administration and major media since 1998 in this country. You should be aware of that fact, and make critical judgements with it in mind. Something hit the Pentagon, and something is still keeping several other security camera videos locked away for "national security" reasons. The reason I don't know what hit the Pentagon is because of those tapes, and other unreleased bits of trivia.

[mikelewis]

106. Wasn't it the general consensus that Saddam had WMD's?...

or that Osama was behind the Anthrax attacks...

or that our news has a "Liberal Bias"...

or that our elections were fair, in spite of the fraud?

Shit, the general consensus is blind.

[dchill]

124. ...or that Bush won...

in 2000.

or that Bush won in 2004.

[dchill]

85. Well. yeah...

notoriously unreliable if the eyewitness saw a small private jet, or a cruise missile, or...

Those are your unreliable witnesses. :sarcasm:

[sabbat hunter]

20. even if

the video clearly showed a plane the CTers would cry "hoax! Fake! Doctored!" they would not be satisfied unless something OTHER than a plane was shown so they can say "ah hah see no plane it was xyz"

[petgoat]

36. Any competent lawyer would question the authenticity of a

video that has been kept secret for almost five years by an outfit
with unlimited resources and major motivations to lie.

[unschooler]

137. Who cares about the CTers? Let's talk about the video.

Pause the video and look at that thing. Does it look like an airliner to you?

[petgoat]

23. They saw an airliner. So what? A hundred people might see

me two blocks from Rick's Liquors, but that doesn't
mean I robbed the place.

How many people saw the airliner fly into the Pentagon?

[longship]

28. Are you saying that an airliner did *not* fly into the Pentagon?

Surely you are joking.

Read my previous posts. There were many, many eyewitnesses to the plane actually hitting the Pentagon. Go do your research of the news reports on 9/11. You can get dozens and dozens of different reports from people of all walks of life who witnessed this, including those who actually saw the plane hit, those who saw it dive towards the ground and heard it hit, those who saw it fly over very low and hit things near the ground then disappear, and those who just saw it fly over very low.

Putting the chain of eyewitness evidence together paints a picture of nothing other than an airliner hitting the Pentagon. Nothing else makes any sense.

The tin foil mad hatters also ignore the remains of the passengers, their luggage and everything else found all over the scene. Of course, at 550+ mph there wasn't much left of anything.

Screeching about a video is useless.

[petgoat]

31. I'm saying I don't know what happened, and neither do you. nt

[longship]

37. Yes, I do.

The evidence is compelling. Flight 77 flew into the Pentagon.

Get over it.

[petgoat]

39. Flight 77 flew into the Pentagon and nothing will ever change your

mind. How reasonable is that?

[longship]

41. It's reasonable because that's precisely what happened.

No straw man argument, no special pleading, no cherry picking, no bad science, and no other tin foil mad hatter screeching is going to convince me that what occurred on September 11th did not occur.

There is precisely *ZERO* evidence that anything other than an airliner hit the Pentagon. The *ONLY* airliner that could have hit it was one Flight 77 which was the only airliner that disappeared in that very area and was witnessed by hundreds of people at the same time that the Pentagon was struck.

The question here is why in the Sam Hell do people think something else happened there? I suspect that they have some perverse need to believe in some made-up story in spite of any evidence to the contrary.

I *have* looked into this deeply. There are many, many questions that remain unanswered. However, none of them lead me to believe the garbage coming out of the tin foil hat crowd. None of these questions lead me away from the conclusion that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon on 9/11.

[petgoat]

52. "There is precisely *ZERO* evidence "

Whenever I hear anybody say that with regard to 9/11 they're invariably full of it.

why in the Sam Hell do people think something else happened there?

News reports of a helicopter in the area, witness reports of small planes like commuter
jets, incongruities in the physical evidence (such as the lack of a right-wingtip
strike point on the wall and lack of tail scars on the wall), the stopped clocks
noted by Barbara Honegger, the witness reports of the smell of cordite, the lack
of photographs of stuff people claim to have seen like seats, the continuing controversy
(which should be easily dispelled by simply presenting the artifacts) over what that
turbine was, the suppression of the video tapes.

For starters, since I am certainly no no-planes theorist.

[simonm]

40. Plane or No Plane

The real question should be; why are they hiding the videos?

[longship]

48. Good question.

Especially since none of the videos show anything definitive.

I suggest that these guys are just so secretive that they automatically presume a veil of secrecy over everything. It' kind of the way they live.

But let's look at the physics of this thing.

Flight 77 hit at over 550 mph. A 757-200 at that speed travels over 5 times its fuselage length in one second (over 800 feet). For a camera to be able to capture the collision, the frame rate would have to be much faster than the plane's time within the frame. But the frame rates of these security cameras were 1/2 a second. Even if the plane managed to be within the camera's view when the frame was captured, it is not likely to show anything other than an indescript blur. In this case the most likely outcome is that the camera will not capture the plane at all. This is because at a 1/2 second frame rate the airplane is travelling a distance which is well more than the view the camera is providing. That's why there's nothing definitive to see in these videos.

It's really quite simple.

So maybe the operative question here is:

Why would you draw any conclusions from the fact that these videos don't show anything definitive?

[petgoat]

54. "the fact that these videos don't show anything definitive?"

Ah, so you've seen them? Or are you admitting that you're one of those people
who makes up his facts?

[longship]

62. What facts have I made up?

Pray tell?

[petgoat]

64. You've made up the "fact" that the videos don't show anything

definitive--unless you've seen them.

[longship]

83. Please tell me what the videos tell you.

In order to understand what you are trying to say.
Thanks.

[petgoat]

113. The videos we're talking about are the videos that are secret:

the Pentagon gas station video, the Sheraton video, and the VADOT videos of the expressway.

They tell me only that the government in its infinite wisdom has decided that it doesn't
want us to see what is (or is not) on them.

[longship]

128. Just what do you expect those secret videos to tell you?

Security cameras are not high speed Hasselblads. They are inexpensive digital cameras made for the sole purpose of capturing people doing bad things. They are not engineered, nor are they installed to capture 550+ mph airplanes. That's why they don't take more than a couple of frames per second.

Once you know that, it's a matter of simple first year physics.

Nothing any of these cameras captured is going to be helpful in determining what happened. The cameras are too slow and the airplane too fast. If a camera gets very lucky, it's going to capture the plane, but that will be only a single frame because by the time the camera cycles to the next frame, the whole collision is going to be over. The plane in that single frame is travelling so fast that there isn't enough time for it to register on the image detector before it's moved a considerable distance. What you're going to see is a blur, which just might show the background behind the plane through its image, like a ghost. The plane isn't in one place long enough to be recorded. The shutter is open a considerable time compared to the plane's motion. At 1/10 of a second the plane will travel about 1/2 its length!

From the moment the airliner first touches the wall of the Pentagon until it is completely consumed by the building is on the order of 1/5 of a second!! How in the Sam Hell do you people expect a dumb, slow security camera to capture anything but a blur, if it captures anything at all. For Christ sake, in the time between two individual security camera frames there is enough time for three airliners to impact without the camera capturing any of them.

[petgoat]

132. You can explain about the slow cameras AFTER we get the

videos, not before. Nobody ever said the Sharaton employees looked at the
video but saw nothing but a blur.

[simonm]

60. Don't forget the other videos

There are more videos from different angles. Why are they hiding the rest?

[DemInDistress]

77. yes simonm..viddeotapes were confiscated from the 7/11

100 yards across the from the Pentagon which would clearly show what flew by. Also videotape from the rooftop
camera at the Sheraton Hotel were seized and lastly,the Virginia D.O.T. camera on the highway also caught images as the "missile" flew over the roadway.
"ALL 911 DEBUNKER'S (longship,hack,greyl,LARED,jazz,beam,debunking911,and a few others) NEED TO DEMAND FROM THE BUSH CRIME FAMILY THE RELEASE OF ALL THOSE TAPES"
will you join us debunker's?

[petgoat]

114. Those videos and other suppressed evidence (including

airplane parts, samples from the WTC, the chance to interview Cheney's Young Man, and
more) are being demanded by the Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Sign the petition!

http://www.st911.org/

[DemInDistress]

120. good site petgoat..these professors make a serious case

against that "ludicrous official 911 report" it should be called "Nice Try" how the bush crime family (Nist,Fema,Kean) tried to fool a country. The scholars are my hero's. I often quote their opinions.
I saw today footage released by the BFEE of something striking the pentagon. Where is the day/date/time stamp?
Also, look down the roof line of the pentagon and just past middle center I see a collapsed building a depression an interruption of the roof line, what and why? Any opinions?
thanks again ^5

[petgoat]

121. The Scholars' tent is a bit bigger than I might wish, but it's well

to keep an open mind.

I haven't had time to analyze (or even watch) the video. It seems there
are some anomalies with the shadows too, and the missing date stamps.

[frylock]

43. get over it..

where have I heard that phrase before?

[petgoat]

55. "where have I heard that phrase"

Maybe in the election fraud forum? Many of the same arguments are used.

"There is no evidence...", "only a loony would believe...", "you're going to kill the
credibility of the left...", "focus on the issues we can win..."

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[longship]

84. Excuse me, Mr. Sunshine.

The hole in the side of the Pentagon was over 15 feet in diameter. The fuselage of a 757-200 airliner is between 12 and 13 feet in diameter. Get your damned facts right, before you make a fool of yourself, my friend.

Of the hundreds of people who saw Flight 77 dive into the Pentagon, how many saw it as a smaller airplane? How many? You have to take *all* of the eyewitnesses and evaluate what the concensus is. Why? Because, like or not, not everybody is going to see the same event the same way. That's why you have to look at the whole picture. But that's not what the tin foil mad hatters do. They cherry pick their evidence, ignoring the vast majority of the witnesses who saw clearly what really happened on 9/11--Flight 77, a 757-200 airliner, flew into the side of the Pentagon. There were hundreds of people, including Paul Begala, who witnessed this.

And just like all the tin foil mad hatters, when their delusions are challenged, they resort to name calling.

[orleans]

133. sometimes things aren't always the way they seem

"Putting the chain of eyewitness evidence together paints a picture of nothing other than an airliner hitting the Pentagon. "

then it's gotta be true!

:sarcasm:

(what about the eyewitnesses who said they saw two planes flying around there? and the helicopter? what about those security videos confiscated from the nearby gas station & hotel? where are those? why can't we see them? why were they confiscated?)

how many people involved with jimmy swaggart, jim & tammy baker, fawell, 700 club, etc. have claimed to witness miracles? in that regard we could say: "Putting the chain of eyewitness evidence together paints a picture of nothing other than a freakin miracle."

[karlrschneider]

35. We won't ever convince the CT nutballs. Not ever.

:eyes:

[Duer 157099]

42. Then why not release the other hundreds of tapes

of the pentagon?

[karlrschneider]

44. Why not, indeed? Who has them?

...

[Duer 157099]

47. the g'ment

I read some of the FOIA requests and the replies, and therein it is acknowledge that there are MANY surveillance tapes in their custody. Why only release this piddly little one? God forbid there should be a CRIME on the Pentagon's premises, and THIS IS what their crack surveillance captures??? Makes you wonder, either way.

[karlrschneider]

49. Well, someone should file another FOIA request.

There's more than enough BS still floating around the events of 9/11 that needs to be doped out without getting distracted with the idiotic theories that no Boeing plane hit the pentagon, because it did. This stuff just makes us look like morons. Well, not necessarily "us."

I'm WAY more interested in finding out the truth about why NORAD couldn't seem to manage to get some interceptors up and away than in searching for a "missing" 757 full of missing people.

[petgoat]

66. If you were really interested you could pretty quickly find out

that it looks like there were six simultaneous wargames going on on 9/11,
which may have included the injection of false radar blips. This would
have disrupted the air defense in a classified manner, since nobody can
talk about the classified war games.

Pretty simple stuff, actually.

[DemInDistress]

78. the FBI has them.... nt

[frylock]

45. just as we will never convince the OV nutballs..

[karlrschneider]

51. So we are at an impasse.

Like the creationists and the evolutionists, perhaps?

[frylock]

56. perfect analogy

[frylock]

58. so you're sitting in your car on the interstate during rush hour..

and something flys past you at approximately 500 MPH. You think you can positively ID it?

[Old and In the Way]

126. Focused on the radio, trying to catch every word of what's happening

in NYC, because there's no bulletin about an incoming aircraft about to attack Washington, DC.

Or talking with a friend about the NYC attack or on the cellphone talking about the NYC attack. You have 2, possiblly 3 seconds to notice the object and ID it before it is in the building.

What does surprise me though is that no one got lucky and happened to catch the plane on the way into the Pentagon. Random chance would seem that someone might have caught something on film...a pic or video that wasn't confiscated by the feds.

[truebrit71]

59. "Get over it"?

You believe what the MSM presstitutes shove down your gullet, and I'll wait until they show the remaining tapes displaying your "facts"....


"Get over it?"

The commuters did not "*all*" see an airliner, in fact many were very hazy indeed as to the size, shape and colour of the plane...

Get over THAT....

:eyes:

[DoYouEverWonder]

74. Show me an eyewitness who saw both the plane

and the explosion?

Most people saw one or the other but not both.

Of the people who saw the plane, there is little in their accounts that can positively ID even what type of plane it was, no less a specific plane.

[DemInDistress]

76. I need a video..btw, "DEMAND THE BUSH CRIME FAMILY" RELEASE

the confiscated videos from the 7/11..the Sheraton Hotel rooftop camera and the Virginia D.O.T. then maybe we can put this "M-U-R-D-E-R FOR PROFIT" to bed. "MAYBE" !!

[Grateful for Hope]

80. Maybe we need more proof than "you said so" n/t

[TomClash]

87. I thought flight 77 flew into the Pentagon

until I saw this video. I don't know what that is.

[mirandapriestly]

131. That isn't what straw man means

Please stop misusing the term, why do you people do that?

[unschooler]

135. Link to witness testimony, please.

[unschooler]

136. It's not what I don't see here, it's what I do see, that bothers me.

It just doesn't look big enough to be an airliner.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

22. This smells like a Rove.....

distract the media, make people remember 9/11 and thats why Bush is spying on you....so you dont end up like the "people" who died on 9/11


shit, what a non story

[reichstag911]

26. Remember, a Rove...

...by any other name would still smell like a turdblossom.

[petgoat]

32. If they want to pull a Rathergate, they'll release a really

fakey-looking video, or one that looks like a Rorschach so people can see
what they want to see.

Then the 29% can think they see a plane, the truthists can all say "that
doesn't look like a plane" and the Bushcists can answer "You're all loonies
who think a missile hit the Pentagon!"

[Trish1168]

68. Agreed. Keep us afraid to keep us compliant.

That's not just Rove...its all of them.

[Duer 157099]

27. WTF? I just watched the tape on CNN...

isn't this the same thing that's been out forever? Or were those just the stills from that video? I don't get it, why was that video so closely guarded, if it was already released as stills?

Effin unbelievable

[robpopulace]

29. From CBS news

snip

"The video had previously been leaked and publicly circulated, but this is the first time the government will have officially released the imagery. "

snip

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/16/terror/main1622101.shtml
Complete non-story...

[Jeroen]

70. Missile

Where did that missile come from? How was it fired, from what platform?
It looks like is was fired almost horizontal, very strange (a vehicle on the road?)
It could explain that perfect hole in one of the rings (almost same height)

[DoYouEverWonder]

140. Possibly from the C130

that flew over the Pentagon within a minute of the crash.

[woo me with science]

30. You gotta freeze-frame it

See?

[Shoestring]

33. Watch the clip now online:

You can watch the clip on the Fox News website:
http://www.foxnews.com/
Just below the headline "Video Shows 9/11 Attack on Pentagon"
Click on "Video: Pentagon Video"

[lady lib]

69. Thanks! And here's an AOL link as well:

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060516130609990009&ncid=NWS00010000000001

[lady lib]

146. The erroneous Sept. 12, 2001 date

is gone now from this video with "AP" put in its place. It was there yesterday...hmmm.

[frylock]

46. what a load of fucking horseshit!!!

Five years we waited for this?! So we could see a white blotch before the guard shack?! This is what passes for conclusive evidence? Fuck this shit!

[karlrschneider]

53. Did someone claim it was conclusive evidence?

I guess I missed that part...

[jbnow]

155. I didn't see video

but heard on news several times that it would put the "internet conspiracy theories" to rest. From the way they talked about it I assumed it would show the plane and just like they said, put to rest the questions.

Doesn't sound like it.

Funny that they said they held it for that trial because they didn't want to prejudice the jury?

[petgoat]

157. Maybe they thought it would make the jury think the gov'ts case

was a load of crap?

[truebrit71]

50. Nope. Complete bullshit. I want to see the OTHER tapes that were taken...

..that day...

That way the sanctimonous crowd that believe everything that is shoved down their throats by the MSM will finally have to face reality...

However this footage, which has been circulating the planet for the last five years and not "Never before seen" as that stupid lipgloss Faux Presstitute asserts, shows NOTHING we haven't already seen, and proves not one damned thing....

What a crock of shit... :eyes:

[woo me with science]

57. oh dear

[petgoat]

65. So you see a plane on that tape? Is that what you're saying? nt

[woo me with science]

108. LMAO! Hi there!

I'm so glad you actually responded, because I have a question for you! In your best judgment, what happened to the plane that disappeared, and all the people on it?

I am really looking forward to this! :hi:

p.s. There are a couple of messages above that will explain to you why a plane travelling at over 500 miles per hour would not take a good picture. I think the authors may even have typed them very slowly for your benefit.

[frylock]

112. such a wonderfully condescending post..

discovering what happened to the passengers if, indeed, it was a missile or something else that struck the Pentagon would be the final part of the investigation. First thing would be to determine, (typing s l o w l y for you on this) DEFINITIVELY, if 77 was what impacted the Pentagon. Frankly, I'm not qualified to answer one way or the other. But the release of ALL footage from the Pentagon, Sheraton, service station, etc. would go a long way to answering those questions. But I'm sure it's your belief that the release of any video or photographic evidence still wouldn't convince the so-called CTers. That same argument was being posted, ad nauseum, prior to the release of the video today.

[woo me with science]

115. Ooooh, I get it!

We will get to that very important part of the investigation LATER!

No, I'm with you! I can't wait to hear, because it is obviously a very secret location, and very scientific!
:yourock:

[petgoat]

117. what happened to the plane that disappeared, and all the people on it?

I don't know. According to Wing TV (and I have made no effort to verify this), of 64 people on
flight 77, only 14 are in the Social Security Death Index, and only 5 are on the victims
compensation fund list. That suggests that many of those people never existed. Perhaps you would
like to track down their families and ask them why they never put in for compensation or Social
Security.

Since the oceans are wide and a plane is small, I suppose disposing of one is not terribly difficult.

[woo me with science]

123. The passengers never EXISTED!

Man, you are blowing my mind!

They wanted people to THINK a plane crashed! So they took a plane and HID it! And then they made a FAKE crash! To fool people!

And it was all done with FAKE people! Even at the funerals! IF the funerals really happened!

This is a very BIG and CLEVER conspiracy!

:yourock:

[petgoat]

127. If a simple logical analysis of the situation blows your mind,

perhaps you should exercise it more.

I am not espousing any theory that the passengers did not exist. I am simply sharing
information on the subject.

[woo me with science]

129. Thanks for sharing!

So the passengers MIGHT exist! But they might NOT!

This is a BIG MYSTERY!!!

:yourock:

[petgoat]

130. The assertion that the passengers do not appear on the

Social Security Death lists and that no one put in for compensation from the victims
compensation fund is indeed mysterious. Average payout from the fund was $1.5 million
per victim.

So maybe Wing TV has got something, or maybe they're making it up. I don't know.
If you want to know what happened to the passengers, I suggest you start there. Ask
the family members why they didn't put in for compensation.

[Popol Vuh]

139. Ahhh antfarm

I'll tell you happened to the plane that disappeared.

"WE DON'T KNOW" Is that ok with you? Now let me ask you to answer this.

How does not knowing what happened to the missing plane change the facts that the damage on the pentagon was way too small to accommodate the missing plane?

How does not knowing what happened to the missing plane change the fact that the excuse given by the government as to why only a small fraction of plane wreckage was recovered was because the ensuing fire from the wreck was so intense that it burned up most of the plane. Nevertheless, the bodies from the plane ended up at the morgue. What were these people made from for their bodies to survive such an intense fire; kryptonite?

Have you ever read "Operation Northwoods"? If not, then I would recommend that you do. If you do; start reading at page 10 of the .pdf file (note: the pdf pages and the pages printed at bottom of the document itself are not the same. I am using what the pdf file is indicating). Pay close attention to the top of page 12 and the top of page 13.


I could ask a lot more questions, but these simple questions will suffice. :hi:

[MervinFerd]

61. ONE frame per second.

The video on the CNN web site is advancing at one frame/sec. At least on my download.

You wouldn't expect to see a plane moving at (say) 400 mph.

Multiply it out.

[Zynx]

63. At 2 FPS, how the hell would you see something moving 300+ MPH?

[Sinti]

71. Dammit, that Fox vid shows nothing. I was hoping it would be put to rest.

Then again, this plane was going 500 mph, even at 30 frames per second, you aren't going to see much. Swish-boom is about what I'd expect.

[Jazz2006]

72. On the other video released to Judicial Watch...

There were 2, not just the one linked above.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L75Gga92WO8&eurl=

I think you actually can see the nose of the airplane (or missile, if you prefer) for a split second at 1:25/1:26 of this video.

(But I wouldn't have expected anything more than swish/boom anyway.)

[Grateful for Hope]

79. I am not surprised.

I know LARED said that, once the tape came out, "CT'er's would say that the tape was altered.

If the tape had been even 50% better than the first one in terms of identifiable information, maybe what LARED figured would happen might have had some credibility.

But, alas.

[mogster]

81. Is this new footage?

I'm sorry, but I've seen this video a zillion times, for several years, in all sizes and even as an animated gif.

What's up? Is this new footage? :-o

[file83]

89. This is making me curious - apparently this footage was just "officially"

released. But it's been all over the internet for several years. This must be a pathetic attempt to remind Americans via the MSM of the 9/11 attacks - A last ditch effort to try and boost the presidential ratings?
Why now?
How does this fit with their agenda?
What's coming next?

[mogster]

82. Here - an animated gif from a page that's been out forever

A bit down on this page is the same footage as an animated gif:

http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm

Here:



WTF? Is this new footage?

[Jazz2006]

91. There are two videos here:

that were released to Judicial Watch today and are now on YouTube.

In this one, at 1:25/1:26 you can see the nose of the plane (or missile, if you prefer) for a split second just before the crash/boom/blaze.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L75Gga92WO8


In this one, at 0:24 seconds in, you can see some part of the plane (or missile if you prefer) for a split second just before the crash/boom/blaze.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAaP4Z3zls8&eurl=

The second one looks like it is the source of the stills that were circulated way back when that formed the basis of the gif that you posted.

[mogster]

94. Thanks for posting

:-) Appreciated, I hadn't seen the new footage.

[Jazz2006]

102. You're welcome.

:)

[AlienSpaceBat]

92. The new video is different from the one you are talking about.

Not that it shows anything that is of any more use. Of course.

[Bolo Boffin]

90. Best place to get the videos:

From Judicial Watch

Judicial Watch 9/11 Video

Five years they've had to fake this video and this is the best they can do? Bush can't do anything right!

Actually, I keed. Of course Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. There isn't a single eyewitness (no matter what their initial impression) that believes otherwise today. Not a single person at the Sheraton who "sat in horror looking at the tape over and over" has said that anything other than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

Flight 77 is trackable on radar records from the moment it took off until it disappeared shortly before crashing into the Pentagon. It never landed. There's no swapping of aircraft. Passengers boarded it, it crashed, and their bodies were recovered from the wreckage.

This is a fact. You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. You will have to get over it.

[Bushknew]

93. Not a single person at the Sheraton who ...

"sat in horror looking at the tape over and over" has said that anything other than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon."
----------------

How could they not, the FBI took the evidence!!!!!

Good Lawd!!!

[Bolo Boffin]

95. What?

How does your statement have anything to do with refuting mine?

[Bushknew]

96. Believe a Sheraton maid, without evidence?

If a Sheraton maid said, a 757 didn’t hit the Pentagon, who is going
to believe them without evidence?

How could the Sheraton staff or ANYONE ELSE come forward and say
that a 757 didn’t hit the Pentagon without having proof?

The FBI took the proof.

[Bolo Boffin]

98. Are Sheraton maids especially untrustworthy?

How could anyone come forward and say that Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon without proof? Well, we have to deal with that every day here in the September 11th forum. If you guys can do it, why can't the Sheraton maids?

[Bushknew]

100. So, they would convince you if

they came foreword?

Please Bolo

[Bolo Boffin]

103. But they haven't

You're in the land of speculation and hypothetical there.

They haven't. No one has. And the evidence, all of it - the radar, the eyewitnesses, the plane debris, the bodies of the passengers - say one thing alone - Flight 77.

[woo me with science]

111. The Sheraton maids

are actually mind-control control subjects who have induced multiple personality disorder as a result of satanic ritual abuse by the Illuminati and Skull and Bones members. They are conditioned through spin programming and MKUltra to offer misleading information about this controlled demolition while simultaneously acting as sex slaves for Dick Cheney.

[Bolo Boffin]

142. Well

That changes everything, natch. :woohoo:

Dick Cheney's sex slaves, hunh? No wonder he's been dozing in public recently - the poor guy's all tuckered out!

[Generarth]

156. You must be a guardian poster

it sounds so familiar.

[jschurchin]

99. What is a Fact?

I can tell by this statement:


"This is a fact. You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts."

you are not a trial attorney. A FACT is what a good trial attorney can convince 12 reasonable people to be true.

[Bolo Boffin]

105. Any actual contribution to the discussion?

Other than ontological exploration?

[petgoat]

118. Whenever a debunker uses the word "fact" I know some

nonsense is coming up.

Flight 77 is trackable on radar records from the moment it took off until it disappeared shortly before crashing into the Pentagon.

Have you not read the 9/11 Commission Report? See page 25. Flight 77 diappeared from radar
at 8:56. It then flew undetected for 36 minnutes until 9:32.

[Bolo Boffin]

141. Sigh.

How many times do we have to go over this, petgoat?

The screen the air traffic controllers were looking at is the screen the plane disappeared from. That screen is a composite of several different radar signals (primary, secondary, etc.). There can be up to four as I understand it, and a sophisticated piece of software produces the final product that is displayed on the ATC screens.

On a review of that final product, i.e. what the ATCs were looking at, it was seen that Flight 77 first switched from flying NW to W. Then the transponder was turned off, and the identifying information disappeared. Then the actual signal disappeared for a moment.

During those few moments, the plane turned around. When the software reacquired the plane's signal, it was not where ATCs were looking on the screen. They were looking NW and W, not east. This is why the plane flew undetected for 36 minutes. It wasn't identified as a plane again until it was back on the Washington ATC screens.

However, the 9/11 Commission looked not only at the final product of the software, but the actual records of the basic signals themselves. And on the basic signals (not the composite produced by the ATC software) the radar echoes of Flight 77 are trackable from beginning to end, even during the time that the composite signal was dropped by software and nothing displayed on the ATC screens.

In other words, Flight 77 is trackable on the radar records from the time it took off until the time it crashed into the Pentagon. These are the facts. I'm sorry that you find them inconvenient.

[petgoat]

144. So you're saying that after two planes had been flown into

buildings, the controllers at Dulles and Reagan had an approaching plane with
no transponder, one that Cheney was tracking from the White House bunker, and they
only saw it at 9:32 after they were asked to look for it (9CR p. 25)?

You provide no source for this proposition.

[Bolo Boffin]

147. Ummmm...

The source I used was the 9/11 Commission Report, which you conveniently cited in your own post asking for a cite. Stray cut and paste?

Page 25 seems right to me.

Now as to your claim that Cheney was tracking it, I'd like to see your source for that.

On Edit: I'd also like to note that your original question was about the radar, which I answered, and now you've moved the goalposts.

[petgoat]

148. My augmented question still related to your proposition that

77 was tracked continuously on radar, a claim you source to the 9CR though I know
of no such assertion in the 9CR.

Cheney's tracking of flight 77 is in Norman Mineta's testimony to the 9/11 Commission.
Mineta said he got to the WH bunker at 9:20 and Cheney was already there, engaged in
conversation with a young man that Mineta surmised was about a shootdown order on an
aproaching flight 77.


Mr. MINETA: .... There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is 50
miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young
man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and
whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the
contrary?" Well, at the time I didn't know what all that meant. And --

MR. HAMILTON: The flight you're referring to is the --

MR. MINETA: The flight that came into the Pentagon.... I arrived at the PEOC at about 9:20 a.m....

MR. ROEMER: So when you arrived at 9:20, how much longer was it before you overheard the
conversation between the young man and the vice president saying, "Does the order still stand?"

MR. MINETA: Probably about five or six minutes.


http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing2/9-11Commission_Hearing_2003-05-23.htm

[Bolo Boffin]

150. Uh-huh.

Alright, on page 460, you have note 142 for the first chapter. It reads:

Primary radar contact for Flight 77 was lost because the "preferred" radar in this geographic region had no primary radar system, the "supplemental" radar had poor primary coverage, and the FAA ATC software did not allow the dispaly of primary radar data from the "tertiary" and "quadrary" radars.

The implication being, if the software had allowed that primary data from the tertiary and quadrary radars to be displayed, Flight 77 could have been reacquired.

I did not claim that it was tracked continuously that day. I said that it is trackable when you look at all the radar data from that day. In other words, they sat down with the records and traced it from beginning to end.

But nice try.

[petgoat]

151. All right, my apologies. The operative statement appears to

be on p. 25: "Radar reconstructions performed after 9/11 reveal that FAA radar equipment
tracked the flight from the moment its transponder was turned off at 8:56."

So why didn't you say so?

Of course believing that requires you to take the 9/11 Commission's word for it.

Given that they blithely say NORAD was "mistaken" for three years, and given 39 outright
lies in the Report, I wouldn't.

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050523112738404

So whether the "claim" in the 9CR that 77 was trackable is a "fact" is highly disputable.
The 9CR says the WTC fell in 10 seconds. It says the core was "a hollow steel shaft".

[Bolo Boffin]

153. To be honest, it's been a while since I looked at it.

I had to download the PDF to my new computer. I'd assumed you had looked at page 25, so I looked other places.

Glad to be of service.

[Chomp]

97. The best site I've seen today:

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77.htm

My favourite bit: the section on eyewitnesses saying things like:


'It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane,' Mr Campo said. 'I was cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact. The whole ground shook and the whole area was full of fire. I could never imagine I would see anything like that here.'


'There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. Everybody was running away in different directions. It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts on the way in.'


"I can still see the plane. I can still see it right now. It's just the most frightening thing in the world, going full speed, going full throttle, its wheels up,"


"I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building,"



BUT NONE OF THIS WILL MATTER TO THE TRUE BELIEVERS. THEY WILL READ THOSE REPORTS AND SIMPLY NOT BELIEVE THEM. THIS MAKES DEBATE, FRANKLY, IMPOSSIBLE.



On edit: I should say I think the authors attempt to "outline" the plane from the security camera is a stretch that fails. The rest I pretty much buy.

[frylock]

101. i'm most impressed with mr. campo's testimony..

'It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane,' Mr Campo said. 'I was cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact. The whole ground shook and the whole area was full of fire. I could never imagine I would see anything like that here.'

Able to ID an "American Airways" aircraft flying low overhead at nearly 500 MPH.

[Chomp]

104. And on that thin straw rests your case? Ok.

[frylock]

110. not unlike the official version (OV)..

thin straws, and all.

[anotherdrew]

145. just like you ignore contradictory reports. you're no better than anyone

you pick and choose which witnesses to listen to.

[LoKnLoD]

107. What amazes me is...

that a non commercial pilot could fly a plane of that size, of that weight, at that speed at such a low altitude without crashing into the ground first. It looks like it is flying a straight line at 10 feet above the ground. Amazing flying.

[FogerRox]

109. I see no 757.......... though An ex Saudi Air Force pilot is more likely

[unschooler]

138. The alleged hijacker/pilot of Flight 77 did not have military experience.

Like the other 9/11 suspects, his flight training took place at a private flight school.

[petgoat]

149. The Dulles securicam pictures show a guy who doesn't look

anything like Hani Hanjour. He's bigger and hairier.

[FogerRox]

152. Obvisouly that person was not flying FLight 77

[unschooler]

158. Best. Sig line. Ever.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[DoYouEverWonder]

116. The ground and gravity

should have been enough to prevent any 757 from even getting close to the Pentagon. Especially after the plane clipped a few light poles.

Amazing.

[petgoat]

119. At one time somebody presented some civil engineers'

report about the Pentagon damage as alleged proof that the 757 hit the
Pentagon. Until then I was very hostile to the no-757 theory. To explain
the patterns of the damage the report had to suppose that the ends of both
wings were clipped off. I don't think they ever explained why the tail
didn't leave a big scar.

[ediedidcare]

122. Photoshop Expert Here...

I did a little experiment using one frame from the old gas station stills and the corresponding
frame from the new stills released today. What I found was that the Pentagon perspective roof line was a dead-on
match with only a slight rotation to the left on the new shot ( these shots were the frames with the orange explosion bloom
consistent in both shots down to the specks of debris).

Everything lined up except for the immediate foreground - it is as if the same camera was used except the new shot
thrusts forward about 10-15 feet and eliminates the service station island there by giving an unobstructed view of the
speeding nosecone ( bullshit if this is 77) this object immediately smears out to a white streak identical to the old
still collection.

In my opinion this is a shockingly crude fake.

[Ferry Fey]

143. Comparisons

I did a little experiment using one frame from the old gas station stills and the corresponding
frame from the new stills released today.

It might be useful to superimpose the outlines of the main features of one film in white, over the other.

Is it indeed the same police car? Does that tally in terms of timing?

[lies and propaganda]

134. haha, NOPE!

and that sure is gonna shut the conspiracy theorists up...

edited for angry spelling

[philb]

154. What ever happened to the gas station & hotel tapes

Why haven't they been released.
I haven't seen any serious tapes released yet,
but witnesses at the hotel said they had good pictures.
Why haven't they been released now that the trial is over.
As if that was ever a valid reason.