hodgy0_2

Sure

Here you go,

http://www.judicialwatch.org/cases/j...on-no-06-1135/

Geezer

If the plane is travelling at 500mph, then it is travelling at 223 m/s. The CCTV footage we have of the Pentagon crash is not very far away, let's be generous and say its field of view was 300m (but looking at the footage, it looks considerably less). It is a low res sensor, it's only monitoring traffic coming in thourgh that security gate. Anything coming across it's path at anything other that a fairly sedentary pace is going to be blurred, in each frame.

Go and stand at the side of a motorway with a decent HD camcroder, fix the focus and stand there for ten minutes. When you get home, look at the footage and the cars will be blurred. That is from a camera that is far more advanced than the CCTV at the Pentagon.

I would be more suspicious if they did have decent footage of the plane.

Even if you discount that, you still have failed to say why so many eye witnesses said they saw a plane. Not a missile. Something as big as a 757 is quite distinguishable from a cruise of whatever type of missile some claim it was.

As far as I know, no one on the day claimed to have seen a missile, it's purely based upon the damage to the Pentagon. I have looked and can't see that anyone did claim to see it, but even if someone did, it's a tiny minority and the vast majority of eye-witnesses say a plane flew over them and they saw it hit the Pentagon.

Also, a missile wouldn't make a 75ft wide hole as the dynamics of a missile explosion are somewhat different to a fuel explosion. The former has much greater power (for obvious reasons) and the damage visible immediately after the crash would have been much greater. A fuel explosion is (which you see on the CCTV footage) is much more of a fireball, with much less destructive force. The plane itself has entered the Pentagon leaving the hole, and the heavier elements of it (landing gear, engines) punched hole in the inner rings. You do not see a nice plane shaped hole as the Pentagon is made of thick re-inforced concrete, the plane is not. A 75ft hole is large enough to accomodate both engines, which is why the hole is 75 ft, ot 16ft as some claim, as they were heavy enough to penetrate, unlike the filmsy wings.

The evidence points at a plane, not a missile.

gary77

iTrader: (1)

If you had read what I said you would seen that I now agree it was a plane , also my question over cctv footage did not concern the one camera that caught it but the other 80 the fbi took , and if you stood a quarter of a mile from a motorway and filmed it what would you see ?And do toi mot sonder what all thé other cctv caméras around thé pentagon captured , if you do some reaserch you would know there were 2 more that would have caught something ,

hodgy0_2

Why would anyone be filming from 1/4 a mile away

And what other two videos, from the hotel and garage across the road?

gary77

iTrader: (1)

Any cctv that would of picked it up approaching

I'm Just saying what other people have said , I don't know if there are answers it would take a lot of research , but if you look online there are plenty documentaries and options from highly quilified people

gary77

iTrader: (1)

Unsure if these cameras were added after 9/11



The ones on the roof are the ones I was referring to actually three , the highway one is a good example as well

Also there are many conflicting eyewitness reports and a dispute over the flight data recorder info, and the hijackers flight instructor report on how bad a pilot he was combined with the flight path he took

markjmd

iTrader: (11)

So in that case, why are you still going on and on about cameras? What do you hope this missing camera footage would prove, if it really exists?

gary77

iTrader: (1)

I'm not sure what it would prove , how could I know what happened .

I've been going on about it to make it clear what my origanal comment was about because the people replying didn't seem to understand the point I was trying to make

I've said my reasons for doubting the official story I don't think there is any need for me to say anymore

markjmd

iTrader: (11)

To most people I'm pretty sure that going from a position of not believing it was a plane that hit the Pentagon to believing it was would count as a pretty major step towards no longer doubting, so is that doubting present or past tense?

Turbohot

Is it still going?

See, I told you, Gary. Just polling results would have sufficed your thread, and the discussion on the topic would have been inevitable. You are the most vocal debater on this thread, so just as well.

stipete75

Gary I agree with you mate, the official story sucks big time, there are just to many secrets, too many doubts, changing stories, unexplained circumstances, answers, silences etc,,, why are the governments not telling us the entire story, hiding info, hiding images, something is being covered up somewhere, certain theories don't add up that people only want to question?
I for one second don't believe everything that we are being told, just too many unanswered questions to let it lie.

The funny thing is when the entire truth does come out we will all be long gone, I suppose that's what D-notices are for,national security my *** lol............tut tut mr Blair.

gary77

iTrader: (1)

considering the eyewitness reports that saw a 757 AA plane it really does have to have been there , but because of the points i mention earlier i'm still not clear on exactly what happend or who by .

Geezer

How do you know things are kept secret? It is an extremely paranoid viewpoint. Questions are asked, they are answered and the questioner either accepts the answer, or chooses to ignore it as it does not fit in with what they want to believe, or it doesn't make sense etc. Then there are things that cannot be released for reasons fo national security. That really feed paranoia, but there are lots of things within intelligence communities that it is perfectly reasonable to keep secret. That is no the same as covering something up though, but conspiracy theorists seem to think that any unanswered question is a cover up, any answered question is a cover up too!

It's unanswered because it is not suitable to answer it, or they don't know the answers. You can't fill in the gaps with something you have made up because you don't know. Of course, it could be a cover up, but the evidence really doens't point to that.

If you accept it was a plane, then there is nothing to answer on the 'what'. The only answer left is 'who' and the evidence does not point to the US govt, or if it does, as I alluded to in a previous post, it's would be a rogue element furthering their own ideals at the cost of innocent lives and certainly not the wider government. Either way, it's a terrorist act.

scoobyland

YOU HAVE TO BE stupid to believe the conspiracy theories into 9/11, why would the USA government kill thousands of its own people, and we all know it was done by jihadists.

BTW, I like conspiracy theories, as long you don't take them seriously.

stipete75

Interesting watch regarding how the steels columns collapsed

scoobyland

You can't deny it was muslim terrorists who were behind 9/11.

gary77

iTrader: (1)

Hmm

scoobyland

So were the Cameroonian government behind it then?

gary77

iTrader: (1)

It's documentaries like that that make me question what the truth is.

scoobyland

People who BELIVE In 9/11 conspiracies are probably trying to appease muslims by saying they weren't to blame.

bonesetter

iTrader: (9)

What a bloke

Geezer

Yes, of course that is the answer. The US govt managed to sneak in unnoticed to one of the busiest buildings in Manhattan, strip away all the plaster and concrete covering the steel beams, set their extremely complex thermite/thermate, whatever, on enough places to bring it down in a controlled explosion. It's so simple, how could we have ever missed it.........

Carnut

The whole theory is based on jet fuel not being able to reach high enough temperatures, well a match can't melt metal but use it to start a fire and the materials that are eventually engulfed will.

Geezer

Indeed, and you don't even need to melt it, only soften it, which happens at much, much lower temperatures. That doesn't suit the crackpots' agenda though, it has to melt, otherwise their arguments fall down. Not unlike the Twin Towers really.

bonesetter

iTrader: (9)

Oops - BBC Report Collapse Of WTC 7 – 26 Minutes Too Early

Geezer

I can't see that video at work, so you'll have to 'enlighten' me. Too early for what? Are you now trying to imply that BBC were part of the conspiracy?

jonc

This might help.
http://www.wtc7.net/bbc.html

I'd rather blame the BBC for a ****-up in their reporting (not the first time and certainly not the last) rather than the BBC were somewhow "in on it".

bonesetter

iTrader: (9)

^^this

hodgy0_2

that BBC report has been explained time and time again - in a frantic day of live news reporting, they made a simple error that was corrected

but these idiots simply don't want to listen - even that even Dylan Avery the creator of Loose Change thinks it is rubbish


http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/legacy/th...acies_iii.html

bonesetter

iTrader: (9)

Aah... so the 'error' was all down to Reuters - that's all OK then

Do you know who owns Reuters