Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * - 8 votes

911 Pentagon Video Footage


  • Please log in to reply
3292 replies to this topic

#1606    bee

bee

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,942 posts
  • Joined:24 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England

Posted 23 August 2012 - 05:59 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 23 August 2012 - 05:27 PM, said:

Because the NTSB was not allowed to conduct a proper investigation, and because the Pentagon did its "investigation" instead, NOBODY got to see any identifying parts or serial numbers.  THAT is rather the problem.  No accountability, just "take my word for it", typical military.

yes that IS a problem....and means no definitive proof....?

Quote

A bunch of pictures out of context proves nothing, and keeping the evidence away from proper investigators strongly suggests subterfuge, involving an agency notorious for its subterfuge. :innocent:

I can't disagree

:tu:


#1607    bee

bee

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,942 posts
  • Joined:24 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England

Posted 23 August 2012 - 06:08 PM

View Post747400, on 23 August 2012 - 03:48 PM, said:

How do you mean, angled? the 757 has a notably straight fuselage.


Posted Image


see the black lines I've drawn in.......THAT angle


the Traffic Cam 'plane' fuselage...does not show the necessary angle...to have the engine so far back.




http://www.airliners...66855b8d14c505b

.

Edited by bee, 23 August 2012 - 06:10 PM.


#1608    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 23 August 2012 - 06:14 PM

View Postbee, on 23 August 2012 - 06:08 PM, said:

Posted Image


see the black lines I've drawn in.......THAT angle


the Traffic Cam 'plane' fuselage...does not show the necessary angle...to have the engine so far back.




http://www.airliners...66855b8d14c505b

.
bee, the images can be rotated as well, so that the angle isn't as you've shown.  Which is what I would do after I've found a good match for the expected perspective.  I probably should have clarified that as well when I gave you the list this morning, but I was a bit rushed to get out the door.


#1609    bee

bee

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,942 posts
  • Joined:24 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England

Posted 23 August 2012 - 06:32 PM

View PostADDIS77, on 23 August 2012 - 04:35 PM, said:

I have to disagree with you on this point. Like others have said, the aircraft is not approaching the camera perpendicularly, it is coming in at an angle which would make the left engine appear closer to the rear of the fuselage.

but the fuselage would be angled towards the traffic cam....and in the images you have posted the fuselage is NOT angled
towards the traffic cam.




Quote

Actually, I should give credit to YouTube user and JREF poster cjnewson88, he provided me with the images. Thanks, CJ!




Ah, yes. I usually post as "Boone 870" or "Boonedoggled" on 9/11 forums. A Boone and boonY on the same forum may cause confusion so I went within an obscure reference to the "9/11 mystery plane" instead.

lol...you sound like quite an old hand at the 9/11 merry-go-round  debate.


Quote

Any thoughts on the video I posted?

my first thought is that the video you posted would not be sufficient to prove anything in a court of law....

I think I've seen the O'Brien guy on a youtube vid where he is speaking to camera

I'm going to try and find that and have another look at it.


.


#1610    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,967 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 23 August 2012 - 06:37 PM

No definitive proof IN EITHER DIRECTION, Bee.  And that is the problem.

As you and others have mentioned. it would seem there are many many ways this issue could be resolved by the authorities.  The most conclusive would be some photographic evidence and proffering the physical evidence of aircraft debris up for inspection by neutral parties.  This COULD be resolved, if only they wanted to.


#1611    Admiral Rhubarb

Admiral Rhubarb

    An Inspiration to Millions

  • Member
  • 23,429 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hammerfest

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 23 August 2012 - 07:17 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 23 August 2012 - 06:37 PM, said:

No definitive proof IN EITHER DIRECTION, Bee.  And that is the problem.

As you and others have mentioned. it would seem there are many many ways this issue could be resolved by the authorities.  The most conclusive would be some photographic evidence and proffering the physical evidence of aircraft debris up for inspection by neutral parties.  This COULD be resolved, if only they wanted to.
And what would that prove? As i suggested earlier, even if they provided the data plate from Boeing 757 c/n 24602, and the Rolls-Royce makers' plates from the two engines, and , i don't know, the microwave from the galley, wouldn't the response just be that "It may have all just been faked. It proves nothing."?

Life is a hideous business, and from the background behind what we know of it peer daemoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more hideous.

H. P. Lovecraft.


Posted Image


#1612    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,965 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 23 August 2012 - 07:35 PM

View Postbee, on 23 August 2012 - 12:34 PM, said:

Under the circumstances......ie.millions of people believing the US government committed mass murder and high treason
against it's own citizens...

I think it is required....

You probably need to get your statistics in order.  Sakari posted a more updated poll regarding how many people still believe this was an inside job/government cover up.  
Once I find that poll, I will post it for your review.

View Postbee, on 23 August 2012 - 12:34 PM, said:

Sky....are there any bits of debris you can show that has been 100% identified as being flight 77...with the numbers on them?

and I mean 100%


cheers

Let us first start off by having the CT's admit a PLANE did crash into the Pentagon first before getting into the nitty gritty details.  Based on the photographic evidence Sky has presented, do you still beleive the fly over theory?

Or did you purposefully miss ADDIS's statement regarding a tower 1.2 miles away should not have missed a jumbo jet, practically shooting down the fly over theory?

No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#1613    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,965 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 23 August 2012 - 07:44 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 23 August 2012 - 05:27 PM, said:

Because the NTSB was not allowed to conduct a proper investigation, and because the Pentagon did its "investigation" instead, NOBODY got to see any identifying parts or serial numbers.  THAT is rather the problem.  No accountability, just "take my word for it", typical military.

See Boony??  I knew the "liar liar pants on fire" arguement would present itself again.

And then What BR?  if the serial numbers would have been presented to either you or a private investigation, Im pretty sure the CT's would still claim that the part numbers were purposefully faked.

View Postbee, on 23 August 2012 - 12:34 PM, said:

A bunch of pictures out of context proves nothing, and keeping the evidence away from proper investigators strongly suggests subterfuge, involving an agency notorious for its subterfuge. :innocent:

See my statements above.  Regardless if the physical evidence were released to the private investigators, I am sure YOU would still claim it was a bait and switch.

No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#1614    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,965 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 23 August 2012 - 07:50 PM

View Post747400, on 23 August 2012 - 07:17 PM, said:

And what would that prove? As i suggested earlier, even if they provided the data plate from Boeing 757 c/n 24602, and the Rolls-Royce makers' plates from the two engines, and , i don't know, the microwave from the galley, wouldn't the response just be that "It may have all just been faked. It proves nothing."?

Maybe I should have read the entire thread before posting.  You took the words right out of my mouth!

No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#1615    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,125 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, BC

  • We are all made of thermonuclear waste material

Posted 23 August 2012 - 07:53 PM

View PostRaptorBites, on 23 August 2012 - 07:35 PM, said:

Let us first start off by having the CT's admit a PLANE did crash into the Pentagon first before getting into the nitty gritty details.  Based on the photographic evidence Sky has presented, do you still beleive the fly over theory?

Or did you purposefully miss ADDIS's statement regarding a tower 1.2 miles away should not have missed a jumbo jet, practically shooting down the fly over theory?

Its interesting to note that no one here who seems to prefer the flyover theory has taken the time to address this:

View PostCzero 101, on 13 August 2012 - 11:14 PM, said:


* edited to just the relevant point *

Posted Image


ETA...

This also shows why the "Flyover Theory" is not possible, since an aircraft flying over the Pentagon would almost certainly have been seen in this video.







Cz

"Thinking is critical, because sense is not common..." - GreaterSapien
"Enquiring and doubting the "official story" are also good things .... However when these doubts require you to ignore the evidence, to dishonestly cherry pick evidence and claim it supports your case when it doesn't, when you operate a double standard; demanding proof of that which is already proven whilst making unsupported statements and personal opinions to back your own case and when you deny the truth simply because it IS the official story then you are no longer acting in a rational way. This is not the behaviour of a "different thinker", this is the behaviour of a "believer" who chooses not to rationally think about the evidence at all." - Waspie Dwarf

#1616    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,965 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 23 August 2012 - 07:56 PM

View PostCzero 101, on 23 August 2012 - 07:53 PM, said:

Its interesting to note that no one here who seems to prefer the flyover theory has taken the time to address this:









Cz

Yes CZ, it is interesting isn't it?

Since Bee is a proponent of the fly over theory, I am surprised that she has not yet responded to that evidence as of yet.

No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#1617    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • ...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 23 August 2012 - 08:00 PM

View Postbee, on 23 August 2012 - 06:08 PM, said:

Posted Image


see the black lines I've drawn in.......THAT angle


the Traffic Cam 'plane' fuselage...does not show the necessary angle...to have the engine so far back.




http://www.airliners...66855b8d14c505b

.

What is that roughly 5 degree angle supposed to represent?
And what does it have to do with the position of the engines?

I'm lost here.


#1618    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,965 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 23 August 2012 - 08:01 PM

View PostADDIS77, on 23 August 2012 - 01:14 AM, said:

bolded for emphasis


Yes, the pilot of the C-130 (GOFER 06) did report that the aircraft that crashed into the Pentagon was a 757. Below is a you tube video that contains the actual recording if anyone is interested, it's runtime is 3 min. and 18 seconds.



The recording is actually two separate channels spliced together. They are Washington Departure and Reagan Tower. It needs to be pointed out that the guy saying "it went into the Pentagon, it looks like it went into the Pentagon" is a controller in the tower. The actual impact point at the Pentagon is not visible from the tower. However, the eastern half of the Pentagon is visible from that location and anyone who is a proponent of the flyover theory will have to explain how he missed a 757 from 1.2 miles away.

I reposted ADDIS's statement and have placed emphasis on the bolded statement.

How did any CT miss this gem?

Edited by RaptorBites, 23 August 2012 - 08:03 PM.

No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#1619    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,965 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 23 August 2012 - 08:06 PM

View PostMID, on 23 August 2012 - 08:00 PM, said:

What is that roughly 5 degree angle supposed to represent?
And what does it have to do with the position of the engines?

I'm lost here.

It seems to me that Bee's theory relies on having the plane's nose comming in at something close to that angle for the parking lot video posted to show a 757 based on the engine location.

No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#1620    bee

bee

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,942 posts
  • Joined:24 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England

Posted 23 August 2012 - 08:12 PM

View PostRaptorBites, on 23 August 2012 - 07:35 PM, said:

You probably need to get your statistics in order.  Sakari posted a more updated poll regarding how many people still believe this was an inside job/government cover up.  
Once I find that poll, I will post it for your review.


please do


Quote

Let us first start off by having the CT's admit a PLANE did crash into the Pentagon first before getting into the nitty gritty details.  Based on the photographic evidence Sky has presented, do you still beleive the fly over theory?

Who said I believed in the fly over theory in the first place? You must be muddling me up with someone else.


Quote

Or did you purposefully miss ADDIS's statement regarding a tower 1.2 miles away should not have missed a jumbo jet, practically shooting down the fly over theory?

....on about the fly over theory again..... :hmm:



View PostRaptorBites, on 23 August 2012 - 07:44 PM, said:

  Regardless if the physical evidence were released to the private investigators, I am sure YOU would still claim it was a bait and switch.


So....you fancy yourself as telepathic AND you can see into the future....

don't give up the day job.... :P

.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users