US releases 9/11 Pentagon video

#2
FNUSNU said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4987716.stm

Finally - the authorities have released security camera footage from the Pentagon in hopes of dismissing conspiracy theories.

Video seems to have a problem at my end, does it work for anyone else?
No it doesn't work...is it a conspiracy :?
 
#4
army-hopeful said:
USA Today

This one works, but you'll have to watch the advert first. Not that clear, to be honest.
Thanks for that, BBC link clearly FUBAR. I've seen this video before and do not understand how an inexperienced pilot can fly that low, that fast and that straight. I also don't know how the plane managed to avoid all the structures commonly associated with a urban environment flying at that height before it hit the Pentagon. How did he not hit any lamp-posts, fences, cars or other buildings which may have caused the plane to breakup first? Either he'd had a lot of flying experience or he was very very "lucky" in reaching his target.
 
#5
Cause its a fit, just like the lunar landings.....shirttt..... nsa on my tail......gotta go guys............
 
#6
This was the first time i've seen this video, and frankly all i could see was a white tube in one frame, and the next frame showed the impact with the Pentagon. Obviously im no expert on this subject, but really how can anyone tell from this video whether it was a plane, missile, UFO, or anything?

Judging by some overhead pictures i've seen of the pentagon, Jacques Bustard, i would say that a pilot taking the plane at an average speed could quite easily approach at a low(ish) altitude and hit the side of the Pentagon, but i agree the pilot would have to know what he was doing.
 
#7
A million monkeys could produce Hamlet, so one of 25 million Saudies might be able to fly after a few lessons.

Put the tin foil back on the head and step back.

Mind , seen the picture of the circle in the 3rd or 4th internal wall? ...

So the Aircraft is made of lightweight aluminimmmum or whatever ..but still manages to punch a hole (nice circle) in the 3rd or 4th wall.?

with not much other damage to show?

well

best put my tin foil hat on.
 
#8
but i agree the pilot would have to know what he was doing.
Ive flown with some complete fuckwits that have no problem trying to fly into buildings. Very accurate they were too. Especially coming in too fast into R850 over the Eastern fence and trying to park the cab in the Sgts Mess.






Ref the Pentagon thing. He only had to be 'lucky' once.
 
#9
Im never sure about things like this, but what are the other theories put forward? We know a plane went missing, so how would Al Qaeda hide it and all the passengers? Surely a plane into the pentagon is a sensible explanation? And eye witness accounts (were they any?)
 
#13
Jacques_Bustard said:
army-hopeful said:
USA Today

This one works, but you'll have to watch the advert first. Not that clear, to be honest.
Thanks for that, BBC link clearly FUBAR. I've seen this video before and do not understand how an inexperienced pilot can fly that low, that fast and that straight. I also don't know how the plane managed to avoid all the structures commonly associated with a urban environment flying at that height before it hit the Pentagon. How did he not hit any lamp-posts, fences, cars or other buildings which may have caused the plane to breakup first? Either he'd had a lot of flying experience or he was very very "lucky" in reaching his target.
His flying tutor said he couldn't fly in a straight line, never mind pull off the kind of flying that would have been needed to hit the pentagon. In fact it has been stated that most experienced fighter pilots would have struggled doing it in an aircraft that size, after all it was a passenger jet not a dogfighter. Also being trained in BDA, I and a lot of my collegues all agreed that the damage was more akin to a crusie missile strike.
Then there is the missing debris and wings. There were no marks on the wall from wings. The official reason stated was that they sheared off, if so, why were they not on the lawn outside? A airline rep said the only piece of wreckage was certainly not from that type of aircraft.
There is now such much stuff on the net both conspiracy and anti-conspiracy and both can paint a compelling arguement.
 
#14
This is where I make myself look like a spiv... Exactly what would be the benefit of firing a cruise missle into the Pentagon and claiming it was Al Queda? Well I assume that you could use it as a reason for a fight against terror, but two planes hitting two towers the same day might have already covered that.
 
#15
FNUSNU said:
Jacques_Bustard said:
army-hopeful said:
USA Today

This one works, but you'll have to watch the advert first. Not that clear, to be honest.
Thanks for that, BBC link clearly FUBAR. I've seen this video before and do not understand how an inexperienced pilot can fly that low, that fast and that straight. I also don't know how the plane managed to avoid all the structures commonly associated with a urban environment flying at that height before it hit the Pentagon. How did he not hit any lamp-posts, fences, cars or other buildings which may have caused the plane to breakup first? Either he'd had a lot of flying experience or he was very very "lucky" in reaching his target.
His flying tutor said he couldn't fly in a straight line, never mind pull off the kind of flying that would have been needed to hit the pentagon. In fact it has been stated that most experienced fighter pilots would have struggled doing it in an aircraft that size, after all it was a passenger jet not a dogfighter. Also being trained in BDA, I and a lot of my collegues all agreed that the damage was more akin to a crusie missile strike.
Then there is the missing debris and wings. There were no marks on the wall from wings. The official reason stated was that they sheared off, if so, why were they not on the lawn outside? A airline rep said the only piece of wreckage was certainly not from that type of aircraft.
There is now so much stuff on the net both conspiracy and anti-conspiracy and both can paint a compelling arguement.
 
#16
Agreed, Death. A cruise missile into the Pentagon would be totally unnecessary, what with the towers. I admit that the debris etc. may not have been typical of a crash, but then who knows for sure? And surely it's a pretty quickly prepared thing?! A cruise missile into the Pentagon the same period as the towers strikes, the Americans would have been thinking pretty quick to pull it off. I'm just not sure i can buy the whole missile into the pentagon to incite war feelings. It would work, but it appears as overkill, no pun intended.
 
#17
Death_Rowums said:
This is where I make myself look like a spiv... Exactly what would be the benefit of firing a cruise missle into the Pentagon and claiming it was Al Queda? Well I assume that you could use it as a reason for a fight against terror, but two planes hitting two towers the same day might have already covered that.
Quite true, Row.

Also it would have been a bit of a risk on the part of the 'authorities' if actual footage of said cruise missile had been captured by joe public.

As with the moon landing issues, it would have been harder not to go to the moon and fake it than actually go.

People believe what they want to believe. There is nothing to compare this incident with so some people try and bolt on normality to it. When they cant or if the answers given by the Gov arent what they want to hear, hey presto, conspiracy. The US administration couldnt cover up a dog turd let alone something on this scale.
 
#18
What you saying???? That they were there..... oh Lord...... best get to the bookies......
 
#20
I've already seen this video a few times. Apparently, it's from a filling station just across the way. But what happened to the videos from the roofs around the Pentagon which were also immediately confiscated? They haven't turned up yet.
I've always kept an open mind on this subject, but there are a few questions that remain unanswered. One of them is why such an inexperienced pilot decided to fly practically to the other side of the Pentagon (something like a 120 degree turn, if memory serves) and smear into the bit that had just been renovated and was comparatively empty? Why not come in straight across the river (the direction the aircraft came from anyway)?

Just pass me that tinfoil, I need a new titfer.

MsG
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top