Welp that should erase the Pentagon Missle Theories...

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » May 16, 2006, 10:46 pm

DoD released the tapes of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon from 2 security cams in response to a request under the Freedom of Information act. That should (but won't) quell that part of the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories. Clearly the thing hitting the building is much larger than a single seat jet or missle.

http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/index.html

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » May 16, 2006, 10:58 pm

Well they had almost 6 years to put something together. If they could fake the moon landings they could fake this!

Sendarie · Post by **Sendarie** » May 16, 2006, 11:00 pm

Be careful Arb else some of the tin foil hats may start to wrinkle.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » May 16, 2006, 11:28 pm

Well I doubt it was anything other than a plane that hit the Pentagon but the video is in no way conclusive to shedding any further light on the matter. You see one quarter of the plane for one frame and frankly, it doesn't exactly look like a commercial plane.

Then again, it's the sort of conspiracy jumped on by fools, even though the government continues to do nothing but perpetuate the myth by releasing shit like this.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » May 16, 2006, 11:28 pm

I'd prefer a Colander...

as a hat!

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » May 16, 2006, 11:32 pm

Winnow taking longer than expected to rebut!!

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » May 16, 2006, 11:45 pm

He's preparing the footage and reply as we speak!

cadalano · Post by **cadalano** » May 16, 2006, 11:47 pm

is my shit fucked or is that 1 frame per second? thats nothing more than what was originally released except for the nothingness that occurs before and after.

when i heard they were releasing footage i expeceted it would have been the gas station security camera that would have recorded a much better angle

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » May 16, 2006, 11:53 pm

From what I understood, they released the footage from multiple cameras. I am guessing that not all of it has actually been made public yet. Either that or they were in the "process" of releasing the footage from multiple cameras. That might be more likely.

noel · Post by **noel** » May 17, 2006, 12:28 am

Btw I have a PDF that does an excellent job of rebuking 'Loose Change'. If anyone wants it, PM me and we'll work something out.

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » May 17, 2006, 12:36 am

We may never know all the cover-ups relating to 9-11. Too many people's reputations at stake, and probably too much shady dealing involved by thos capitalizing on it.

But I've said it before and I'll say it again. The "conspiracy" theorists are fucking nuts.

The govenment can't keep what they had for breakfast secret. Conspiracy theories are created by weak-minded, frightened people who can't deal with the disorder of the universe, and need to belive that SOMEONE is in control, preferably someone they've already heard of.

"20 arabs? Impossible! How could they possibly have done this?? I've never heard of them! They've never even been on TV!"

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » May 17, 2006, 12:54 am

Conspiracy theorists remind me of Jeff from Coupling, they start out making sense then go just that liiiiiittle bit too far:

Fact is, some women don't have large breasts, and they're people too. Maybe they'd like the freedom to show us their bottoms instead of their breasts. Maybe they'd enjoy a more flexible arse-friendly beach that says: "Hey, so long as you've got cleavage, who cares which way it's facing?"

It must be a lot easier being gay. Sex must be a piece of piss if you're gay. If you're gay, see...if you're gay, masturbation is practice. Y'know, you can have a good old practice on your own, and then later, when you're ready, when you've got the hang of it, you have a go on someone else's. It's a piece of piss....See, it's different...it's different when you're a straight bloke. When we finally get our hands on the gear, let me tell you, it's not a drill. Gays have their own practice kit, but you don't get any practice women. We're supposed to fly those babies the first time we get in 'em!

Hesten · Post by **Hesten** » May 17, 2006, 4:14 am

Im surprised that no conspiracy nuts managed to produce a better video of what happened with the time it took the official channels to release anything.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » May 17, 2006, 4:38 am

I can't see shit in that video! Could still be a Globalhawk!

Seriously, that doesn't settle anything. They added one more still frame which shows a blurry white nose of something. There was a security camera from a nearby hotel that had a great shot of the area in question. That tape has never been shown or even acknowledged exists from the Pentagon.

I'm sure this will be posted on snopes as if it settles everything. One additional blurry picture. Case closed! (link snopes article here)

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » May 17, 2006, 7:38 am

Agreed, hardly what I'd call "conclusive".

Trias · Post by **Trias** » May 17, 2006, 8:24 am

i was pretty stoked to read this thread initially
now i find it is just lame
i add to its gayness

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » May 17, 2006, 9:30 am

A Military and Government that could have planned the 911 hits on the Pentagon in response to the attacks on the WTC I would be proud of, ours is too dumb and slow.

Trek · Post by **Trek** » May 17, 2006, 10:04 am

I guess flight 77 got lost in the Bermuda triangle

oh nos!

Kluden · Post by **Kluden** » May 17, 2006, 11:00 am

Being from the area, and having a jobsite right down the street....I can honestly say that the "HOTEL CAMERA SHOT" that people cling to...is impossible to show the impact....I imagine it could show what was flying at it...but its hard for those cameras to catch something moving 500mph..

The hotel sits on the side of an incline...goes up to the DOD offices, then a decline down to the pentagon itself. Probably a good half a mile between hotel and pentagon...if not more....with no direct view of the pentagon, because it is blocked by the DOD office buildings that are at the crest of the hill.

Also, there is no reason the hotel would have a camera facing that direction...unless it is a government camera...which, I'll be honest, they do NOT need, considering the plethora of cameras that are much closer.

noel · Post by **noel** » May 17, 2006, 11:41 am

Kluden wrote:Being from the area, and having a jobsite right down the street....I can honestly say that the "HOTEL CAMERA SHOT" that people cling to...is impossible to show the impact....I imagine it could show what was flying at it...but its hard for those cameras to catch something moving 500mph..

The hotel sits on the side of an incline...goes up to the DOD offices, then a decline down to the pentagon itself. Probably a good half a mile between hotel and pentagon...if not more....with no direct view of the pentagon, because it is blocked by the DOD office buildings that are at the crest of the hill.

Also, there is no reason the hotel would have a camera facing that direction...unless it is a government camera...which, I'll be honest, they do NOT need, considering the plethora of cameras that are much closer.

/sarcasm

OMG KLUDEN IS ONE OF THEM!

/sarcasm

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » May 17, 2006, 12:07 pm

Kluden wrote:Being from the area, and having a jobsite right down the street....I can honestly say that the "HOTEL CAMERA SHOT" that people cling to...is impossible to show the impact....I imagine it could show what was flying at it...but its hard for those cameras to catch something moving 500mph..

The hotel sits on the side of an incline...goes up to the DOD offices, then a decline down to the pentagon itself. Probably a good half a mile between hotel and pentagon...if not more....with no direct view of the pentagon, because it is blocked by the DOD office buildings that are at the crest of the hill.

Also, there is no reason the hotel would have a camera facing that direction...unless it is a government camera...which, I'll be honest, they do NOT need, considering the plethora of cameras that are much closer.

If it wouldn't show anything anyway then why is it classified??? Ah ha!

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » May 17, 2006, 12:46 pm

You people are easily convinced. I've got 100 acres of prime beach front real estate in Florida. I'm selling the entire 100 acres cheap for $1,000.00 Here's a picture of it:

It should be obvious from the picture how great it is. Send me your money via Paypal!

miir · Post by **miir** » May 17, 2006, 1:08 pm

Clearly the thing hitting the building is much larger than a single seat jet or missle.

Clearly?
I know my eyesight is bad, but those videos didn't clearly show anything.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » May 17, 2006, 1:16 pm

I never believed it was anything but a jet (although the impact itself is very very strange), but those videos show nada.

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » May 17, 2006, 1:53 pm

lol...that looks more like a missle than a 767..in the brief split second we get to see it.

Kluden · Post by **Kluden** » May 17, 2006, 3:42 pm

If you really want your mind blown'd up:

There are several cameras on the DOD building that would have easily seen the 'action'. Probably about 6 different cameras. There are the gas station camera(s). Then, there are 3 or 4 cameras on interstate 395 that are traffic cameras that also could have easily seen it.

That there are the ones the conspiracy theorists should cling to!

...but I totally didn't say that...my god....they're tapping my interwebs!

Markulas · Post by **Markulas** » May 17, 2006, 5:17 pm

Am I the only one who thinks it's weird that the plane (or missile or whatever) is coming horizontally in relation to the ground. Wouldn't it have been easier if the plane didn't have to keep so low to the ground for so long to hit the pentagon?

cadalano · Post by **cadalano** » May 17, 2006, 5:31 pm

Markulas wrote:Am I the only one who thinks it's weird that the plane (or missile or whatever) is coming horizontally in relation to the ground. Wouldn't it have been easier if the plane didn't have to keep so low to the ground for so long to hit the pentagon?

Jet liners are designed to fly horizontally. It would have been much more difficult to control the plane if it was coming in from a steep angle.. When a plane descends by changing its pitch, it will accelerate dramatically which fights descent because of the increased airflow over the wings. Besides stressing the plane out, this will also exaggerate the effects of any trailing edge controls which are the primary means of guiding the plane. I'm pretty sure that most airliners descend using spoilers or flaps which cause the plane to drop very gradually without increasing speed..

I'd say that the control factor was the reason, but they also might have been smart enough to realize that the pentagon is better protected on the roof and a higher groundspeed would result in a long strip of destruction rather than a small crater

They also may have intended to avoid radar so as not to reveal their target. *shrug*

Cotto · Post by **Cotto** » May 17, 2006, 5:54 pm

Winnow wrote:You people are easily convinced. I've got 100 acres of prime beach front real estate in Florida. I'm selling the entire 100 acres cheap for $1,000.00 Here's a picture of it:

It should be obvious from the picture how great it is. Send me your money via Paypal!

I think i can see a sailboat

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » May 17, 2006, 6:19 pm

Cotto wrote:
Winnow wrote:You people are easily convinced. I've got 100 acres of prime beach front real estate in Florida. I'm selling the entire 100 acres cheap for $1,000.00 Here's a picture of it:

It should be obvious from the picture how great it is. Send me your money via Paypal!
I think i can see a sailboat

Is it one of those "magic eye" things or whatever they were? The pictures that you had to stare at until you felt your eyes start to cross, and then you would be able to see the picture. ><

Post by **Sylvus** » May 17, 2006, 6:25 pm

Boogahz wrote:Is it one of those "magic eye" things or whatever they were? The pictures that you had to stare at until you felt your eyes start to cross, and then you would be able to see the picture. ><

That's not a schooner, it's a sailboat, you dumb bastard...

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » May 17, 2006, 6:33 pm

Don't give yourself a headache. It's just a picture of sand!

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » May 17, 2006, 7:10 pm

Sylvus wrote:
Boogahz wrote:Is it one of those "magic eye" things or whatever they were? The pictures that you had to stare at until you felt your eyes start to cross, and then you would be able to see the picture. ><
That's not a schooner, it's a sailboat, you dumb bastard...

A schooner IS a sailboat stupid head

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » May 17, 2006, 7:58 pm

Winnow wrote:Don't give yourself a headache. It's just a picture of sand!

Winnow wrote:Mallrats tops my list of Kevin Smith movies

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » May 17, 2006, 11:32 pm

Boogahz wrote:
Sylvus wrote:
Boogahz wrote:Is it one of those "magic eye" things or whatever they were? The pictures that you had to stare at until you felt your eyes start to cross, and then you would be able to see the picture. ><
That's not a schooner, it's a sailboat, you dumb bastard...
A schooner IS a sailboat stupid head

I thought it was a Beer Glass?

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » May 17, 2006, 11:35 pm

You aren't seriously this dim?

Post by **Sylvus** » May 18, 2006, 12:25 am

You know what? There is no Easter Bunny.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » May 18, 2006, 1:34 am

Nobody else seemed to get the reference...

noel · Post by **noel** » May 18, 2006, 1:50 am

Stinkpalm him!

miir · Post by **miir** » May 18, 2006, 11:18 am

Sylvus wrote:You know what? There is no Easter Bunny.

Over there, that's just a guy in a suit

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » May 18, 2006, 2:52 pm

<---gets the reference.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » May 18, 2006, 2:56 pm

I got the reference. I was just saying it wasn't one of those eye fuck pictures so don't bother!

Tuddi2 · Post by **Tuddi2** » May 18, 2006, 10:32 pm

Kelshara wrote:I never believed it was anything but a jet (although the impact itself is very very strange), but those videos show nada.

i find it very likely that the u.s.goverment is holding back some information. be it for national security or to mask a cover up of sorts.

i'm curious though, when did you start to believe it wasn't anything but a jet that crashed into the pentagon, and why ?

MooZilla · Post by **MooZilla** » May 29, 2006, 2:37 pm

A boeing 757 is 44 ft 6 in in height.

Watch both of those videos. Does that object look any taller than 10 or 15 feet from that distance?

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » May 29, 2006, 2:47 pm

You people have beer goggle syndrome if you think this extra frame solves anything!

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » May 29, 2006, 5:16 pm

finally, a once-controversial issue is resolved, never to be disputed again!

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » May 29, 2006, 7:50 pm

MooZilla wrote:A boeing 757 is 44 ft 6 in in height.

Watch both of those videos. Does that object look any taller than 10 or 15 feet from that distance?

The 757 is basically a cylinder that is around 13 feet across. You can't count the tail height (44 ft 6 inches) with wheels down as the height of the whole aircraft.

So your 10-15 feet is a pretty good description of the height of the object, assuming it is a 757.

http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=102

*edit* added 13

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » May 29, 2006, 8:13 pm

So you're saying that when the wheels are up, a 757 goes from 44 feet to 10-15 feet? How fucking big are these wheels?

miir · Post by **miir** » May 29, 2006, 8:49 pm

Lynks wrote:So you're saying that when the wheels are up, a 757 goes from 44 feet to 10-15 feet? How fucking big are these wheels?

The tail on a plane that size is around 9 meters, or almost double the height of the fuselage at it's thickest point.

So your 10-15 feet is a pretty good description of the height of the object, assuming it is a 757

The fuselage is nearly 6 meters (18 feet) at it's thickest point (in the center).

MooZilla · Post by **MooZilla** » May 29, 2006, 9:22 pm

miir wrote:
Lynks wrote:So you're saying that when the wheels are up, a 757 goes from 44 feet to 10-15 feet? How fucking big are these wheels?
The tail on a plane that size is around 9 meters, or almost double the height of the fuselage at it's thickest point.

So your 10-15 feet is a pretty good description of the height of the object, assuming it is a 757
The fuselage is nearly 6 meters (18 feet) at it's thickest point (in the center).

Fuselage is 23ft 4in at thickest point. I mis-understood the information i posted at first, and didnt take into account the tailwing.

Still, there's no way that that shape can be more than 15 feet tall. Look at its size, look at the pentagon next to it. Keep in mind that the holes made by the "aircraft" after the initial impact were only 18 feet wide.

By the way, were any parts of the fuselage actually found other than this scrap?

And where are the marks from the impact of the wings? How about even pieces of the wings themselves?

Yep..looks like a really nice 23 foot hole to me.

This is what should have happened.