9/11 Pentagon Video to go public today...

jz82 · Post by **jz82** » Tue May 16, 2006 5:31 pm

luge.gif

cybotron r_9 · Post by **cybotron r_9** » Tue May 16, 2006 5:31 pm

It should be noted that virtually all of the lurid reports being palmed off on the public as examples of “alien misbehavior” are actually secret psychological warfare operations by human rogue military-intelligence units.

Loonatic · Post by **Loonatic** » Tue May 16, 2006 7:08 pm

How does one explain all the lives lost during that if its a "conspiracy"? I dont believe for one second that its a conspiracy, thats bs

Prey521 · Post by **Prey521** » Tue May 16, 2006 7:24 pm

Loonatic wrote:How does one explain all the lives lost during that if its a "conspiracy"? I dont believe for one second that its a conspiracy, thats bs

The goverment pulled "The Island" and created people just to board those planes.

YARDofSTUF · Post by **YARDofSTUF** » Tue May 16, 2006 7:27 pm

Loonatic wrote:How does one explain all the lives lost during that if its a "conspiracy"? I dont believe for one second that its a conspiracy, thats bs

Thats where the aliens come in, weren't you paying attention!!!

Or, they could be used as secret test victims for new chemical weapons!

thepieman · Post by **thepieman** » Tue May 16, 2006 8:44 pm

during that video you can see the gate going up and either someone leaving or entering so someone saw something. I don't know how they were going to use that as evidence. Its not clear at all.

If anyone has a screen cap please post it.

Pie

Izzo · Post by **Izzo** » Tue May 16, 2006 9:52 pm

thepieman wrote:during that video you can see the gate going up and either someone leaving or entering so someone saw something. I don't know how they were going to use that as evidence. Its not clear at all.

If anyone has a screen cap please post it.

Pie

take note of the the black spots on the concrete also ...they move .....and that does not look like an airplane ...i'm sorry.

MissTynker2 · Post by **MissTynker2** » Tue May 16, 2006 10:39 pm

Izzo wrote:Arg....

I would'nt be too upset with myself if I were you. It was definitely worth a question for sure. There are some threads that I personally will not open...no matter what the title or subject...depending on the poster him/herself.

MadDoctor · Post by **MadDoctor** » Tue May 16, 2006 11:20 pm

jz82 wrote: I wouldn't be surprised if another possibility turned out to be true,

One evening an old Cherokee told his grandson about a battle that goes on inside people. He said, "My son, the battle is between 2 "wolves" inside us all.

One is Evil. It is anger, envy, jealousy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego.

The other is Good. It is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion and faith."

The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather: "Which wolf wins?" The old Cherokee simply replied, "The one you feed."

jz82 · Post by **jz82** » Tue May 16, 2006 11:26 pm

There is a truth here and we can only work towards it based on evidence. To say one option is good, while the other one is evil, undermines the very nature of investigation.

MissTynker2 · Post by **MissTynker2** » Tue May 16, 2006 11:29 pm

MadDoctor wrote:One evening an old Cherokee told his grandson about a battle that goes on inside people. He said, "My son, the battle is between 2 "wolves" inside us all.

One is Evil. It is anger, envy, jealousy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego.

The other is Good. It is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion and faith."

The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather: "Which wolf wins?" The old Cherokee simply replied, "The one you feed."

Indeed Sir, indeed!

YARDofSTUF · Post by **YARDofSTUF** » Tue May 16, 2006 11:29 pm

We need Grissim.

thepieman · Post by **thepieman** » Wed May 17, 2006 2:51 am

Izzo wrote:take note of the the black spots on the concrete also ...they move .....and that does not look like an airplane ...i'm sorry.

It looks like a plane..just not a Boeing 757. You would figure with one of the most secure buildings in the country and with all the money they waste they could have bought some real surveilance cams instead of damn Logitech webcams for 25.00 each.

jz82 · Post by **jz82** » Wed May 17, 2006 5:09 am

When Haliburton charges 1 million dollars per camera+installation, you can bet the Pentagon will be loaded with them.

Update on 9/11 Research. One of those "crazy conspiracy theorists" who believes a plane did infact hit the Pentagon.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/video.html

cybotron r_9 · Post by **cybotron r_9** » Wed May 17, 2006 6:32 am

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fusea ... 92f36b5dfd

jz82 · Post by **jz82** » Wed May 17, 2006 2:15 pm

People like Hoffman and Steven Jones do actual research to arrive at conclusions, Fetzer strikes me as someone who cherry picks the research of others. This isn't a bad thing, it's all most of us can do, but it demonstrates how fragile this approach can be. When he sources information from In Plane Sight and Loose Change, it tells me he has not looked at the data critically.

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Wed May 17, 2006 4:19 pm

did anyone get the different videos or have links to the downloadable versions? Everything I try to watch never starts and I'm not seeing where I could download these videos. I want to see them.

Izzo · Post by **Izzo** » Wed May 17, 2006 4:24 pm

UOD wrote:did anyone get the different videos or have links to the downloadable versions? Everything I try to watch never starts and I'm not seeing where I could download these videos. I want to see them.

you haven't seen it yet?

Prey521 · Post by **Prey521** » Wed May 17, 2006 4:28 pm

UOD wrote:did anyone get the different videos or have links to the downloadable versions? Everything I try to watch never starts and I'm not seeing where I could download these videos. I want to see them.

Don't bother, you're not missing much! LOL

judicialwatch.org should have them, they were online as of this morning.

YARDofSTUF · Post by **YARDofSTUF** » Wed May 17, 2006 4:37 pm

Prey521 wrote:Don't bother, you're not missing much! LOL

judicialwatch.org should have them, they were online as of this morning.

He knows better than to trust a conservative that grew up in a gay ghetto!

thepieman · Post by **thepieman** » Wed May 17, 2006 7:15 pm

UOD wrote:did anyone get the different videos or have links to the downloadable versions? Everything I try to watch never starts and I'm not seeing where I could download these videos. I want to see them.

i got the 2 from the DOD I will see the exact link for you.

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

This is More of what I expected to see instead of a blur!! (THIS IS NOT REAL)

loop2kil · Post by **loop2kil** » Wed May 17, 2006 11:07 pm

YARDofSTUF wrote:

kinda looks like a mouse trap

Brk · Post by **Brk** » Thu May 18, 2006 4:00 am

thepieman wrote:i got the 2 from the DOD I will see the exact link for you.

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

This is More of what I expected to see instead of a blur!! (THIS IS NOT REAL)

And just look at that...the plane would have to be almost EXACTLY on an approach like that at hundreds of miles and hour to make the hole it did. In reality, it would've hit at probably 30-35 degree angle, because even Eddie ****in' Rickenbacker couldn't manuever that plane to skim mere feet off the ground and deliver a perfect strike.

thepieman · Post by **thepieman** » Thu May 18, 2006 4:14 am

Burke wrote:And just look at that...the plane would have to be almost EXACTLY on an approach like that at hundreds of miles and hour to make the hole it did. In reality, it would've hit at probably 30-35 degree angle, because even Eddie ****in' Rickenbacker couldn't manuever that plane to skim mere feet off the ground and deliver a perfect strike.

I think the plane or whatever it was , was actually treading on the ground and I bet the wheels were down too.
I dunno if you saw the First video that was taken from the closer of the 2 cams but it shows only a pointy looking white object.

The second video which was taken from the furthest away cam showed a much larger object (White thing behind the gate box) which was practically hugging the ground. I used windows movie maker to capture this since VLC and MP10 kept skipping a frame.

Mark · Post by **Mark** » Thu May 18, 2006 6:08 am

one thing to remember pieman, that video is not the standard 30 frames per second, so i think things moveing fast might be blured and we will not see everything.

Leatherneck · Post by **Leatherneck** » Thu May 18, 2006 8:30 am

At 350 MPH, it would be a blur - even a 757 which is no where near the size of a 747.

Kip Patterson · Post by **Kip Patterson** » Thu May 18, 2006 9:18 am

The frame rate of the video is one frame per second. At 350 mph, the plane is moving 2 plane lengths per frame, and I would guess from looking at the video that the width of the field of view at the distance of the plane is about that. Not much chance of seeing anything.

As to blurring, that would depend upon the effective shutter speed. I'm not familiar with how the scanning works in this style of camera, but in even fairly cheap video cams there is an electronic shutter. Its speed setting controls the rate at which the data from the CCD sensors is transferred to memory, where it is doled out at one-half frame in 1/60 of a second. If this camera had a shutter of this sort, set to 1/1000 of a second, the blur would have been only 6 inches, well below the cameras resolution.

Has there been anything published about the camera specs?

cybotron r_9 · Post by **cybotron r_9** » Thu May 18, 2006 10:32 am

Kip Patterson wrote:The frame rate of the video is one frame per second.

Curious where you got that figure?

At 350 mph, the plane is moving 2 plane lengths per frame,

At 350 mph taht would convert to 514 fps. Since the plane in question is 155 ft. in length that would calculate to 310 fps at 2 plane lengths per frame.

Izzo · Post by **Izzo** » Thu May 18, 2006 10:37 am

I can't make out anything resembling an aircraft in that still or video ..all I see is a blur that appears to be about .00000001 feet off the ground ..or appeared to have hit maybe a hundred feet in front then bounced .....

SpareX · Post by **SpareX** » Thu May 18, 2006 10:39 am

As a Security guard for a living currently.. What type of Crappy Cameras does the pentagon have here. I got cameras here where i can zoom in on 2 people in a car and read thier lips.. those camera are horrible.. even our worst cameras are better then those.

Now.. about the size of the plane.. How close is that entry checkpoint to the site of impact. from the blur and speed/angle.. looks farther away then most care to belive.
the farther away something is.. the smaller its gonna look.

Prey521 · Post by **Prey521** » Thu May 18, 2006 10:45 am

I take it that the camera was dedicated more for parking lot security, than to actually be fixed on the Pentagon, so they didn't need anything real time or high tech.

Izzo · Post by **Izzo** » Thu May 18, 2006 10:45 am

SpareX wrote:As a Security guard for a living currently.. What type of Crappy Cameras does the pentagon have here. I got cameras here where i can zoom in on 2 people in a car and read thier lips.. those camera are horrible.. even our worst cameras are better then those.

Now.. about the size of the plane.. How close is that entry checkpoint to the site of impact. from the blur and speed/angle.. looks farther away then most care to belive.
the farther away something is.. the smaller its gonna look.

I've already thought about scale .. either way ...it still doesn't look right.

SpareX · Post by **SpareX** » Thu May 18, 2006 10:52 am

Prey521 wrote:I take it that the camera was dedicated more for parking lot security, than to actually be fixed on the Pentagon, so they didn't need anything real time or high tech.

True.. but what about the other cameras...

Dont you try and tell me they dont have perimeter security cameras... something is missing..

cybotron r_9 · Post by **cybotron r_9** » Thu May 18, 2006 10:58 am

360 view of the cockpit

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757fam ... inalvr.mov

Kip Patterson · Post by **Kip Patterson** » Thu May 18, 2006 11:37 am

cybotron r_9 wrote:Curious where you got that figure?

At 350 mph taht would convert to 514 fps. Since the plane in question is 155 ft. in length that would calculate to 310 fps at 2 plane lengths per frame.

I timed the rate at which the picture frames changed.

I went by memory on the aircraft length, thanks for the correction. I also got 514, so it turns out that it would be a little more than three plane lengths per frame.

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Thu May 18, 2006 1:08 pm

I'm confused. The two vids that have been released....have already been released, there is nothing new. Actually, the video footage that had been released previously is of better quality. Why is that? The videos we all want to see are the ones from the Hotel and of course all the other vid cam footage from all the different locations surrounding the Pentagon.

cybotron r_9 · Post by **cybotron r_9** » Thu May 18, 2006 1:28 pm

UOD wrote:I'm confused. The two vids that have been released....have already been released, there is nothing new. Actually, the video footage that had been released previously is of better quality. Why is that? The videos we all want to see are the ones from the Hotel and of course all the other vid cam footage from all the different locations surrounding the Pentagon.

No the videos had not been released, only stills taken from said videos.

Some folks have taken the stills and made gifs from them such as this one .......4 fps.

http://www.montalk.net/four_per_second.gif

As for the other footage, well it's missing never to be found again, just like the passengers ....don't you know, it's a conspiracy.