Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8
lliqerty

911 Pentagon Video Footage

3,304 posts in this topic

yes I know that according to the Official Flight Path....the plane is said to come in at an angle...

but it is clear that on the Traffic Cams the 'plane' is more or less horizontal....and the angle is not enough to push the

engine back that far.

Look at the blue line on the alleged fuselage....and the position of the 'nose'

Also on the images that you have kindly provided of all the 757-223s...it looks like the top line of the fuselage would also be angled

for the plane to rotate to the required angle for the engine to be so far back?.

And on the Traffic Cam one there isn't any angle to the top of the fuselage.

:tu:

:D

.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ADDIS.....the second picture you posted has the same problem as the first...in that the 'engine'.....in front of the 'white trail'

is not in the right position.

It is much too close to the 'tail'......and should be more central.

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.

so maybe you should have given YOURSELF credit for being the uploader of this vid..... :P[/Quote]

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

popular name....boon.[/Quote]

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.

Any thoughts on the video I posted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow.... I weep for Britain's education system.... :no:

Cz

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow.... I weep for Britain's education system.... :no:

awwwww cheer up....wipe away those tears..... :yes:

and have a little shoulder massage ^_^

caa35b0b.gif

.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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....

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

.

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.

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:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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....?

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:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

boeing2-1.jpg

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

boeing2-1.jpg

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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."?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

* edited to just the relevant point *

dtree_pent_2.jpg

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

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

boeing2-1.jpg

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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.

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:

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

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

.

I don't fancy myself as a telepath or claim to see in the future.

Read back and check on most of BR's posts. Then you will understand why I made such a statement in the first place.

And also, please re-iterate your position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bee, here you go!

I hate to do this, but this copy / paste is really the only one I could find with a bunch in it....

Polls are polls...One side can tell you a number from a poll, and show you, while the other side can do the same.....

Personally, I think anyone whom thinks it was anything other than terrorists, well, they are idiots.....If I had to ask 30 people at work, I am pretty certain they feel the same.

Anyway, here ya go...

Zogby

The polls that have received the most widespread media attention are those conducted by Zogby International. The Zogby polls have been sponsored by organizations within the 9/11 Truth Movement including 911truth.org.

The first one was conducted in August 2004, on the eve of a Republican National Convention, on 808 randomly-selected residents of New York State. It found that 49 percent of New York City residents and 41 percent of New York state citizens believe individuals within the US government "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act".[4] The margin of error for this poll was 3.5 percent.

The second major Zogby poll on 9/11 was conducted in May 2006. It was a telephone interview of 1,200 randomly-selected adults from across the United States, consisting of 81 questions, with a 2.9 percent margin of error.[5] Some of the questions asked include the following: "Some people believe that the US government and its 9/11 Commission concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence that contradicts their official explanation of the September 11th attacks, saying there has been a cover-up. Others say that the 9/11 Commission was a bi-partisan group of honest and well-respected people and that there is no reason they would want to cover-up anything. Who are you more likely to agree with?"

  • Responses: 48% No Cover-up / 42% Cover-up / 10% Not sure

"World Trade Center Building 7 is the 47-story skyscraper that was not hit by any planes during the September 11th attacks, but still totally collapsed later the same day. This collapse was not investigated by the 9/11 Commission. Are you aware of this skyscraper's collapse, and if so do you believe that the Commission should have also investigated it? Or do you believe that the Commission was right to only investigate the collapse of the buildings which were directly hit by airplanes?"

  • Responses: 43% Not Aware / 38% Aware - should have investigated it / 14% Aware - right not to investigate it / 5% Not Sure

"Some people say that so many unanswered questions about 9/11 remain that Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success. Other people say the 9/11 attacks were thoroughly investigated and that any speculation about US government involvement is nonsense. Who are you more likely to agree with?"

  • Responses: 47% Attacks were thoroughly investigated / 45% Reinvestigate the attacks / 8% Not Sure

The third major Zogby poll regarding 9/11 was conducted in August 2007. It was a telephone interview with a target of 1,000 interviews with randomly-selected adults from across the United States, consisting of 71 questions, with a 3.1 percent margin of error.[6]

The results of the 2007 August poll indicate that 51% of Americans want Congress to probe Bush/Cheney regarding the 9/11 attacks and over 30% of those polled seek immediate impeachment. While only 32% seek immediate Bush and/or Cheney impeachment based on their personal knowledge, many citizens appear eager for clear exposure of the facts.

In addition, the poll also found that two-thirds (67%) of Americans say the 9/11 Commission should have investigated the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. Only 4.8 percent of the respondents agreed that members of the United States government "actively planned or assisted some aspects of the attack."

Newsweek Magazine polls

The Newsweek Magazine poll "What America Knows", conducted Princeton Survey Research Associates International, regularly asks American citizens a wide range of questions relating to world events past and present and a number of more trivial questions of general knowledge.[7] On five occasions the following question has been asked: "Do you think Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq was directly involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001?"

  • September 2003 responses: 47% Yes, 37% No, 16% not sure.
  • January 2004 responses: 49% Yes, 39% No, 12% not sure.
  • September 2004 responses: 42% Yes, 44% No, 14% not sure.
  • October 2004 responses: 36% Yes, 51% No, 13% not sure.
  • June 2007 responses: 41% Yes, 50% No, 9% not sure.

New York Times / CBS News polls

The first 9/11 poll carried out by the New York Times and CBS News was conducted in May 2002. The same 9/11 related question was asked again in April 2004 and October 2006. The 2002 and 2006 polls were apparently published for the first time not by CBS or the NYTimes, but by polling researcher AngusReid.com The 2004 NY/Times CBS poll is available at NYTimes.com (Question 77).

The 2004 poll was conducted by telephone with 1024 adults nationwide in the US, with a 3% margin of error.[8] The 2006 poll was conducted by telephone on 983 randomly-selected citizens of the United States, with a 4% margin of error.[9] One of the questions was the following: "When it comes to what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001, about possible terrorist attacks against the United States, do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?"

  • May 2002 responses: 21% said "telling the truth", 65% said they are "mostly telling the truth but hiding something", 8% said they are "mostly lying", 6% not sure.

  • 3/30-4/1/04 CBS 24% said "telling the truth", 58% said they are "mostly telling the truth but hiding something", 14% said they are "mostly lying", 4% not sure.
  • 4/8/04 CBS 21% said "telling the truth", 66% said they are "mostly telling the truth but hiding something", 10% said they are "mostly lying", 4% not sure.
  • 4/23-27/04 24% said "telling the truth", 56% said they are "mostly telling the truth but hiding something", 16% said they are "mostly lying", 4% not sure.

  • Oct 2006 responses: 16% said "telling the truth", 53% said they are "mostly telling the truth but hiding something", 28% said they are "mostly lying", 3% not sure.

New York Times / CBS News have conducted a number of polls on the Iraq War that have included the question: "Was Saddam personally involved in 9/11?"[10]

  • April 2003 responses: 53% said Yes, 38% said No.
  • October 2005 responses: 33% said Yes, 55% said No.
  • September 2006 responses: 31% said Yes, 57% said No.
  • September 2007 responses: 33% said Yes, 58% said No.

Scripps Howard polls

A poll from July 2006, sponsored by Scripps Howard and conducted by Ohio University, surveyed 1,010 randomly-selected citizens of the United States, with a margin of error of 4 percent.[11] The survey found that 36 percent thought it somewhat or very likely that U.S. officials either participated in the attacks or took no action to stop them[12] because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East.[13] It made some statements relating to some of the 9/11 conspiracy theories and asked respondents to say whether they thought that the statements were likely to be true. Federal officials either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to prevent them because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East.

  • 59% "not likely"
  • 20% "somewhat likely"
  • 16% "very likely"[13][14]

The collapse of the twin towers in New York was aided by explosives secretly planted in the two buildings.

  • 77% "unlikely"
  • 10% "somewhat likely"
  • 6% "very likely"[13][15]

The Pentagon was struck by a military cruise missile in 2001 rather than by an airliner captured by terrorists.

  • 80% "not likely"
  • 6% "somewhat likely"
  • 6% "very likely"[13][16]

In November 2007 Scripps Howard surveyed 811 Americans about their beliefs in several conspiracy theories and asked this question[17] How about that some people in the federal government had specific warnings of the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington, but chose to ignore those warnings. Is this very likely, somewhat likely or unlikely?

  • 32% "Very Likely"
  • 30% "Somewhat Likely"
  • 30% "Unlikely"
  • 8% "Don't Know/Other"

Other United States polls

Rasmussen Reports published the results of their poll May 4, 2007. According to their press release, "Overall, 22% of all voters believe the President knew about the attacks in advance. A slightly larger number, 29%, believe the CIA knew about the attacks in advance. White Americans are less likely than others to believe that either the President or the CIA knew about the attacks in advance. Young Americans are more likely than their elders to believe the President or the CIA knew about the attacks in advance.", "Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure." and "Republicans reject that view and, by a 7-to-1 margin, say the President did not know in advance about the attacks. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 18% believe the President knew and 57% take the opposite view."[18]

A poll reported in the Washington Post in September 2003 found that nearly 70 percent of respondents believed Saddam Hussein was probably personally involved in the attacks.[19]

In May 2007 the New York Post published results of a Pew Research Center poll of more than 1,000 American Muslims. It found that 40 percent agreed that "Arabs carried out the 9/11 attacks," while 28 percent disagreed. Of the 28 percent that disagreed, a quarter (7 percent) believe that the US government is responsible.[20]

In September 2009, a National Obama Approval Poll, by Public Policy Polling, found that 27% of respondents who identified themselves as Liberals, and 10% as Conservatives, responded "yes" to the question, "Do you think President Bush intentionally allowed the 9/11 attacks to take place because he wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East?"[21]

A March 2010 poll conducted by the Angus Reid Public Opinion organization found that 15% of respondents found theories that the World Trade Center was brought down by a controlled demolition to be credible. Anywhere between 6 percent and 15 percent of respondents found credibility in claims that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down, that no airplanes hit the Pentagon or the World Trade Center.[22]

Found on the 911 forum post # 6

So, as you can see, polls will vary based on age, race, political affilitations.

Edited by RaptorBites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't fancy myself as a telepath or claim to see in the future.

Read back and check on most of BR's posts. Then you will understand why I made such a statement in the first place.

I'm sorry but I don't have time to check out all of Babe Ruth's posts. He's a popular chap you know....

It even nearly morphed into the Babe Ruth thread at one point. You guys...and might I say YOU in particular

can't get enough of him...LOL

He even had an avatar especially designed and presented to him earlier in the thread...it was like a fond accolade... :D

And also, please re-iterate your position.

If you insist..... ^_^

a bit later because I'm cooking chicken curry at the moment

edit....@ RaptorBites....just seen your post above. Thanks. Will look at it later.

.

Edited by bee
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but I don't have time to check out all of Babe Ruth's posts. He's a popular chap you know....

It even nearly morphed into the Babe Ruth thread at one point. You guys...and might I say YOU in particular

can't get enough of him...LOL

He even had an avatar especially designed and presented to him earlier in the thread...it was like a fond accolade... :D

His ridiculous style of posting and rebuttal of any evidence with claims of "life experiences" have been hilarious at times, I'll have to admit. LOL

If you insist..... ^_^

a bit later because I'm cooking chicken curry at the moment

Ohhhh yummy, had that last night for dinner!

Also, my apologies if I categorized you under the fly-over theorists. I must have mistaken you for other posters here, possibly lilqwerty as I remember him posting a ridiculously faked picture of a 757 flying over the Navy Barracks a long time back.

edit....@ RaptorBites....just seen your post above. Thanks. Will look at it later.

No Problem! :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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]

I have to disagree again. It appears to me to be headed toward the camera, slightly If you were to rotate the aircraft clockwise on its vertical axis it would swing the left engine further forward and the right engine further back. Of course you would get the opposite effect if you rotated it counterclockwise that would make its left engine appear to be further back on the fuselage like we already see.

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

I started paying attention about six years ago. Then I almost stopped paying attention completely for three years, I've picked the interest back up a little bit here lately.

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

Alone it may not be, but add the pilot's testimony, radar data and eyewitness testimony, it certainly would be.

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.[/Quote]

I will link to the only interview with the pilot that I'm aware of below. If you find something different please share. I would be very interested in seeing it.

.[media=]

[/media]
Edited by ADDIS77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.