Double Tree Video Released?

[Matthew Best]

Is your name inspired by Matthew Good?

You should know better than to ask questions about my NWO screen name in a public forum like this one! I'll answer in the super-secret-sub-forum we all go to when working out how to subvert the laws of physics (but the answer is "no").

 

[celestrin]

Where's the bad ass tree from the Doubletree Hotel video? Who cares. Those Killclowns are such amateurs. What we really need to figure out is what happened to the other tree!

 

[uk_dave]

Pickering Speaks (yet again):

Yes I agree.

Here are the details from the old forum: http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...opic=12296&st=0

But the people at the Doubletree were all weird and skittish too. I started talking with them nearly a year ago. Obviously there was nothing to hide as we have it now.

The games these a-holes are playing with this evidence is sickening.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1326&st=90

When are these a-holes going to realise that they are nobodies?

They have no acreditation with a mainstream news source, they represent no law enforcement organisation or even registered private investigators.

They are just amatuer sleuths who somehow expect people to take the time and trouble to re-hash testimony they gave to the proper authorities 5 years ago.

No one is under any obligation to talk to these guys and they are certainly under no obligation to even tell the truth to these guys. If they want to they can yank their chains with tales of UFO's or the effin' loch ness monster having caused the damage to the pentagon, it makes no difference because amatuer sleuths such as the 'elite pentagon research team' (I love it!) are just enthusiasts 'investigating' a terrorist attack, the details of which appear to be beyond their comprehension.

It truly is a remarkable example of ego and delusion.

 

[T.A.M.]

The reason for their tirade over the Doubletree video, is obviously because it does not show any sign, not one frame, of a "Flyover" plane.

TAM

 

[PerryLogan]

And if it did, they would say it was faked.

 

[boloboffin]

The Hardly Boys in...

The Case of the DoubleTree Flyover

 

[snagswolf]

I've seen several 'versions' of this video (not sure why they're different), but take a look at this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H285_DWX_bQ

Look closely under the underpass. Something goes by there, and it seems to be in reasonable synchronation with the explosion. Looking at the overhead view, it does line up with where the plane should be.

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/images/thumb/c/c6/Doubletreemap.jpg/600px-Doubletreemap.jpg

Is anyone familiar enough with this area to say whether or not the plane's trajectory would be able to be seen underneath the overpass? Is there a traffic lane there (going in the proper direction) that could account for this object going by?

And is the speed correct? Considering that the plane would be further away from the camera than the traffic, it's hard to compare the two.

Or am I late to the dance (as usual) and this has been covered already?

 

[Hierosis]

I think what Stone means, is that any time you are asked what you believe happened on 9/11, you do one of three things.

• Ignore the question
• Dodge the question
• Reply with a narrow statement about what you do not believe

So to repeat Stone:

Will you tell us what you believe 9/11 WAS a result of? If you are sincere, you will.

Grunion,

What I think many here are failing to understand is that, just because I don't accept the official explanation, that does not mean I have constructed my own alternate theory. In my opinion that would be extremely arrogant. I do not have the scientific background to fully explore the building collapses, and I don't have the time to take a class. I do not think I need to lay out a detailed theory here. I have some questions that I have put forth. But I do not contend to have a THEREFORE to follow. Not everyone who questions 9/11 has their own theory, just unanswered questions, or questions that they do not feel have been answered to their satisfaction, which is where I put myself. I don't see things as black and white.

If you want my opinion in a geo political sense (which I am very well schooled in), I would constantly go back to question of who has benefitted the most from the events of that day. Which is why I'm more inclined to fall into what most would call "LIHOP" but I think that's way too simple and there's much more too it.

This country has a history of a dark side that does not have any problem with lying to and manipulating the public to achieve their goals. I could list countless examples if you like, with the most obvious being the War in Iraq. When people ask me, "you really think the government would allow almost 3,000 of it's own people to die?" I always respond with, "well, what's the body count in Iraq right now? More than 2500. And why are we there again? Why are these kids dying? And what has the government done to reconcile a failed policy that has led to so many tragic deaths over the last 3 1/2 years?"

 

[Hierosis]

Politics, it has been going on for a long time.

Exactly. And it seemed very convenient that there was an Anthrax scare (hardly reported, but look it up) shortly after he said this at Senator Dayton's office. Which may or may not have helped finalize his decision not to seek a second term as he was rather popular in his home state among voters.

And I realize that this post is so "page 7" just hadn't seen it until now.

 

[Gravy]

Heirosis, assuming a LIHOP scenario because you believe certain parties may have benefitted from the 9/11 attacks is the kind of post hoc fallacy that we tend to discourage here. I'm not aware of any evidence that elements in the US government knew about the attacks and allowed them to happen. Are you?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Grunion,

What I think many here are failing to understand is that, just because I don't accept the official explanation, that does not mean I have constructed my own alternate theory. In my opinion that would be extremely arrogant. I do not have the scientific background to fully explore the building collapses, and I don't have the time to take a class. I do not think I need to lay out a detailed theory here. I have some questions that I have put forth. But I do not contend to have a THEREFORE to follow. Not everyone who questions 9/11 has their own theory, just unanswered questions, or questions that they do not feel have been answered to their satisfaction, which is where I put myself. I don't see things as black and white.

If you want my opinion in a geo political sense (which I am very well schooled in), I would constantly go back to question of who has benefitted the most from the events of that day. Which is why I'm more inclined to fall into what most would call "LIHOP" but I think that's way too simple and there's much more too it.

This country has a history of a dark side that does not have any problem with lying to and manipulating the public to achieve their goals. I could list countless examples if you like, with the most obvious being the War in Iraq. When people ask me, "you really think the government would allow almost 3,000 of it's own people to die?" I always respond with, "well, what's the body count in Iraq right now? More than 2500. And why are we there again? Why are these kids dying? And what has the government done to reconcile a failed policy that has led to so many tragic deaths over the last 3 1/2 years?"

Present objective, verifiable evidence that the EBC is incorrect, or stfu.

 

[Kent1]

I've seen several 'versions' of this video (not sure why they're different), but take a look at this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H285_DWX_bQ

Look closely under the underpass. Something goes by there, and it seems to be in reasonable synchronation with the explosion. Looking at the overhead view, it does line up with where the plane should be.

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/images/thumb/c/c6/Doubletreemap.jpg/600px-Doubletreemap.jpg

Is anyone familiar enough with this area to say whether or not the plane's trajectory would be able to be seen underneath the overpass? Is there a traffic lane there (going in the proper direction) that could account for this object going by?

And is the speed correct? Considering that the plane would be further away from the camera than the traffic, it's hard to compare the two.

Or am I late to the dance (as usual) and this has been covered already?

You can ask flight77 for a higher rez one. But the best one I got was still only 2.8 megs. I think it shows the plane and the tail. Although its hard to tell.

 

[Pardalis]

What I think many here are failing to understand is that, just because I don't accept the official explanation, that does not mean I have constructed my own alternate theory.

snip

Not everyone who questions 9/11 has their own theory, just unanswered questions, or questions that they do not feel have been answered to their satisfaction, which is where I put myself.

I think that's fair enough. Good point.

But remember Hieoris, this is a discussion forum, you don' tseem to want to debate any of this. Don't feel antognised when we ask you to finish your thoughts, or to back your claims. It is what we're here to do.

If you want my opinion in a geo political sense (which I am very well schooled in), I would constantly go back to question of who has benefitted the most from the events of that day. Which is why I'm more inclined to fall into what most would call "LIHOP" but I think that's way too simple and there's much more too it.

I'm perfectly willing to debate the LIHOP scenario, I think it's at best plausible. but it is very hard to prove, because alot of the claims of LIHOP are from hindsight, and almost all of it is speculation.

This country has a history of a dark side that does not have any problem with lying to and manipulating the public to achieve their goals. I could list countless examples if you like, with the most obvious being the War in Iraq. When people ask me, "you really think the government would allow almost 3,000 of it's own people to die?" I always respond with, "well, what's the body count in Iraq right now? More than 2500. And why are we there again? Why are these kids dying? And what has the government done to reconcile a failed policy that has led to so many tragic deaths over the last 3 1/2 years?"

These are soldiers, trained to do what they do. It's an extremely different thing to kill 3000 of your own civilians.

This is not about politics. It's about the facts. Anybody can speculate.

 

[Kryptos]

I've seen several 'versions' of this video (not sure why they're different), but take a look at this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H285_DWX_bQ

Look closely under the underpass. Something goes by there, and it seems to be in reasonable synchronation with the explosion. Looking at the overhead view, it does line up with where the plane should be.

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/images/thumb/c/c6/Doubletreemap.jpg/600px-Doubletreemap.jpg

Is anyone familiar enough with this area to say whether or not the plane's trajectory would be able to be seen underneath the overpass? Is there a traffic lane there (going in the proper direction) that could account for this object going by?

And is the speed correct? Considering that the plane would be further away from the camera than the traffic, it's hard to compare the two.

Or am I late to the dance (as usual) and this has been covered already?

Hmm... I hadn't seen that version of the video. I still have doubts that one could see through the underpass, from that angle. This is the underpass, which has an on-ramp to I-395 through here. The timing of that blip is intriguing, but maybe it was just a car or truck getting on the highway?

 

[Gravy]

Hmm... I hadn't seen that version of the video. I still have doubts that one could see through the underpass, from that angle. This is the underpass, which has an on-ramp to I-395 through here. The timing of that blip is intriguing, but maybe it was just a car or truck getting on the highway?

[qimg]http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/images/thumb/7/71/Doubletree_armynavy.jpg/600px-Doubletree_armynavy.jpg[/qimg]

Aah! I just tracked down your photo and was about to post it. I knew I should have waited! My guess is that we're looking at a vehicle on an access road/ramp. The object doesn't seem to be moving fast enough to be the plane. The fireball rises up just as the rear of the object goes out of view to the right of the underpass, and that seems to be much too soon. Just a guess though.

 

[Kent1]

Aah! I just tracked down your photo and was about to post it. I knew I should have waited! My guess is that we're looking at a vehicle on an access road/ramp. The object doesn't seem to be moving fast enough to be the plane. The fireball rises up just as the rear of the object goes out of view to the right of the underpass, and that seems to be much too soon. Just a guess though.

I don't think the underpass is anything to do with the plane.

 

[snagswolf]

Hmm... I hadn't seen that version of the video. I still have doubts that one could see through the underpass, from that angle. This is the underpass, which has an on-ramp to I-395 through here. The timing of that blip is intriguing, but maybe it was just a car or truck getting on the highway?

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topic...ee_armynavy.jpg/600px-Doubletree_armynavy.jpg

Thanks. Based on that view, I tend to agree with you.

It's odd that something would be going through there though, without starting from the left before the underpass.

 

[Mince]

This is a sick way to promote Pilots for 9/11 TWOOF (otherwise known as a website/forum designed to sell outrageously priced, low-quality youtube videos on DVD).

It is not their footage. This video was not brought to anyone by PfT. This video was brought to us by the wonderful people of the DoubleTree hotel and Judicial Watch (who legally required its release). To falsely claim credit for its release (as PfT seemingly has) might be illegal.

 

[snagswolf]

I don't think the underpass is anything to do with the plane.

I don't think what seems to be the tail of the airplane above the roadway is actually the tail.

The reason I don't think that is, at the moment of impact, the plane struck the bottom of the Pentagon wall. Some eyewitnesses even say it touched the ground just before it hit the wall.

If that's true, and it seems to be the general consensus, then the tail of the airplane wasn't above the top of the Pentagon. From the position of the video camera, the top of the Pentagon is blocked by the roadway. If the tail was below the top of the Pentagon, then there's no way we could see the tail.

Also, at least in my perception, the 'tail' goes past the explosion point and continues down the road.

 

[Kent1]

I don't think what seems to be the tail of the airplane above the roadway is actually the tail.

The reason I don't think that is, at the moment of impact, the plane struck the bottom of the Pentagon wall. Some eyewitnesses even say it touched the ground just before it hit the wall.

If that's true, and it seems to be the general consensus, then the tail of the airplane wasn't above the top of the Pentagon. From the position of the video camera, the top of the Pentagon is blocked by the roadway. If the tail was below the top of the Pentagon, then there's no way we could see the tail.

Also, at least in my perception, the 'tail' goes past the explosion point and continues down the road.

I think we are looking at different things. Also it does help to get a higher rez version. The possible tail is dark and blurry behind the white. The "tail" dips below, before the impact. (But again I'm not certain)