24 questions to Flight 77 deniers

[tfk]

So why did the FBI then confiscate these videos if they only pointed towards parking lots?

This word "confiscate"... I do not think that it means what you think it means.

To "take, examine for evidence of a crime & then return to the owner"... this is not "confiscate".

How many of those "confiscated" videos in Arlington showed a plane? The FBI tells us that none of the videos (other than the couple that they have released) contain images of a plane. Because they were not looking in the right direction.

You have some evidence to suggest that they are lying?

Because I have evidence that suggests that they are telling the truth: How many security cameras were in operation around Manhattan & those parts of NYC that were within viewing distance of Flights 11 & 175? 1,000? 10,000? 50,000?

How many of those security cameras recorded the impact of Flight 11? Zero? I think I remember reading about one that did.

Just like there was probably 100,000 or more hand held video cameras and probably a million or so still cameras in NYC. And how many videos did we get of Flight 11? One (Sauret) video, one video from a boat on the Hudson (IIRC) and 2 still images (that I know of).

This proves that the likelihood of a security camera catching some random event - even in an urban setting - is extremely low. Probability is close to zero, if the event doesn't happen in, or very close to, the specific location at which they are aimed.

For a given pixel count camera, there is an inverse square relationship between field of view and spatial resolution. If you want to identify someone on a cheap, low res security camera, you want high resolution. Which equals narrow field of view. Which means you don't get much outside of your area of interest.

If AA77 was the SECOND plane to impact the Pentagon (with even a six minute delay), there would have been dozens of cameras that would have been turned on the Pentagon when it hit. (Also a neat little disproof of the "preceding explosion" lunacy.)

But it wasn't. So you get the same thing that we got for Flight 11: one parking lot camera's one lousy image. And a couple of security videos that show virtually nothing.

Now, you are left to explain why - if the FBI is withholding a bunch of videos with images of the AA77 - why there were no such videos of AA11 in NYC.

I await your carefully thought out response...


Tom

 

[adkinsjr]

This word "confiscate"... I do not think that it means what you think it means.

To "take, examine for evidence of a crime & then return to the owner"... this is not "confiscate".

How many of those "confiscated" videos in Arlington showed a plane? The FBI tells us that none of the videos (other than the couple that they have released) contain images of a plane. Because they were not looking in the right direction.

You have some evidence to suggest that they are lying?

Because I have evidence that suggests that they are telling the truth: How many security cameras were in operation around Manhattan & those parts of NYC that were within viewing distance of Flights 11 & 175? 1,000? 10,000? 50,000?

How many of those security cameras recorded the impact of Flight 11? Zero? I think I remember reading about one that did.

Just like there was probably 100,000 or more hand held video cameras and probably a million or so still cameras in NYC. And how many videos did we get of Flight 11? One (Sauret) video, one video from a boat on the Hudson (IIRC) and 2 still images (that I know of).

This proves that the likelihood of a security camera catching some random event - even in an urban setting - is extremely low. Probability is close to zero, if the event doesn't happen in, or very close to, the specific location at which they are aimed.

For a given pixel count camera, there is an inverse square relationship between field of view and spatial resolution. If you want to identify someone on a cheap, low res security camera, you want high resolution. Which equals narrow field of view. Which means you don't get much outside of your area of interest.

If AA77 was the SECOND plane to impact the Pentagon (with even a six minute delay), there would have been dozens of cameras that would have been turned on the Pentagon when it hit. (Also a neat little disproof of the "preceding explosion" lunacy.)

But it wasn't. So you get the same thing that we got for Flight 11: one parking lot camera's one lousy image. And a couple of security videos that show virtually nothing.

Now, you are left to explain why - if the FBI is withholding a bunch of videos with images of the AA77 - why there were no such videos of AA11 in NYC.

I await your carefully thought out response...


Tom

This is a good point, except that the "truth" cult fanatics will argue that the pentagon should have security cameras watching it from the outside because it's the Pentagon...

Since no footage of the plane has been released, or is known to exist, the infamous "truther" imagination takes off; The pentagon couldn't possibly have been hit by a plane, the witnesses are all lying or mistaken, the evidence is all fake, it was probably a missile, 9/11 was an inside job, the illuminati, new world order, roswell aliens, bla bla bla...

 

[tfk]

This is a good point, except that the "truth" cult fanatics will argue that the pentagon should have security cameras watching it from the outside because it's the Pentagon...

Since no footage of the plane has been released, or is known to exist, the infamous "truther" imagination takes off; The pentagon couldn't possibly have been hit by a plane, the witnesses are all lying or mistaken, the evidence is all fake, it was probably a missile, 9/11 was an inside job, the illuminati, new world order, roswell aliens, bla bla bla...

True.

But it dismantles one part of the story that truthers uncritically profess: that the images of the plane had to be on the videos that the FBI grabbed from several surrounding businesses.

As far as the Pentagon videos go, everyone knows that the plane's approach was blocked by all the missile launchers and their "out of service, 9/11/01 only. -GWB" tags...

 

[sheeplesnshills]

I admit the video is not great. There are many videos that are much better. Unfortunately the government is not willing to show them to us. The WTC impacts we have seen from all angles, but not the Pentagon?

Now why would that be?

Could it be that the government does not want us to see what really happened? Looks like it.

There is almost no footage of the the first WTC strike.......and dozens of the second..........Now why would that be?

Could it be that unexpected events are rarely videoed but they attract lots of cameras so that if anything else just happens to happen later? Looks like it

 

[TJM]

Just like there was probably 100,000 or more hand held video cameras and probably a million or so still cameras in NYC. And how many videos did we get of Flight 11? One (Sauret) video, one video from a boat on the Hudson (IIRC) and 2 still images (that I know of).

Just for the record, there are 3 known photographers that caught flight 11:

Jules Naudet, Wolfgang Staehle and Pavel Hlava. Staehle had a webcam setup to capture the Manhattan skyline and Hlava was recording his NYC vacation on a camcorder.

Note that none of them are Americans, which should show undoubtedly that 9/11 was an inside job. A clever bit of subterfuge by the Cheney Administration.

Carry on.

 

[332nd]

True.

But it dismantles one part of the story that truthers uncritically profess: that the images of the plane had to be on the videos that the FBI grabbed from several surrounding businesses.

As far as the Pentagon videos go, everyone knows that the plane's approach was blocked by all the missile launchers and their "out of service, 9/11/01 only. -GWB" tags...

The favored tactic of truthers on my NFL boards is to move the goalposts to "well why won't the release the footage from inside the pentagon!?!"

 

[adkinsjr]

What I want to know is, why would they shoot a missile at the pentagon in the first place? Why not just crash one of those remote controlled fake airliners into the pentagon like they supposedly did to the towers? Why would you even plan to shoot a missile at the pentagon in broad daylight, knowing people are going to be out and about?

If I were one of the wicked conspirators, I think I would have a few objections to that plan.

Of course, we already know such a plan wouldn't work because people would have seen the missile. It's obviously a dumb sounding plan, but that just reflects its origins-- the imaginative minds of "truthers."

 

[sheeplesnshills]

The favored tactic of truthers on my NFL boards is to move the goalposts to "well why won't the release the footage from inside the pentagon!?!"

If the cameras inside (if indeed there were any) were of the same type as that on the gate they would be very unlikely to catch anything in any case and don't truthers know the pentagon is a restricted area and releasing video of the inside might just not be a good idea?

another possibility is they did catch the event and its not something we would really want to see and something the relatives of the dead really really do not need to see!

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

The favored tactic of truthers on my NFL boards is to move the goalposts to "well why won't the release the footage from inside the pentagon!?!"

I would answer that question with this type of response:

If they released footage from inside the Pentagon, all you'd see is debris, smoke, flames, people & parts of the building & plane being thrown everywhere. Not to mention some of the cameras would've been knocked out from the impact itself. So it's not feasible to release the tapes.

That would be my answer!

 

[George 152]

I think C-141 used DU counter weights, the KC-135 used baffles with panels to aerodynamically balance controls; B-747 had DU. Boeing stopped using DU in the 80s.

The DU would be in counterweights to offset control surfaces. No DU in 767/757. Boeing agrees.

Thanks mate and a happy new year to you

 

[George 152]

flight77 excel spreadsheet that notes witnesses who actually saw the impact
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/PentWitnesses.xls

Thanks for that.

 

[Dragon37]

behind the embankment for those overpasses, There is a hi res version of that video zoomed in where you can see the fuselage pass from left to right under the bridge. You can see it at 3 seconds in the video you posted. Look at the movement under the bridge to the far left.

Debunked
Thanks for playing

You can also see on this video the vertical tail fin/stabilizer above the overpass.

 

[X]

I admit the video is not great. There are many videos that are much better. Unfortunately the government is not willing to show them to us. <snip>

If the government isn't willing to show them, it follows logically that you have not seen them.

If you have not seen these videos, how do you know they are better? For that matter, how do you even know they exist?


ETA: While you're answering these questions, it would be greatly appreciated if you would answer the questions in the OP as well.