Pentagon releases AA77 video

Beerina said:
By the way, my wife informs me my brother-in-law is sucked in by loose change. She comes to me one day and says, "Have you seen this loose change web site?"
Click to expand...

The average rational person can usually be dissuaded from falling for a conspiracy theory with one good question.

For the lunar landing hoax CT, it's, "If the government can't keep one guy's blowjob in the Oval Office a secret, how are they going to keep thousands and thousands of people from telling they took part in a lunar landing hoax going on more than 3 decades now?"

For the 9/11 CT, it's, "Where are the passengers of Flights 77 and 93?"

Anyone else is just too whacked to even bother talking to.
 
Not just one lunar landing hoax, Luke. Several! And yet they keep blathering on.

It's a special breed of idiot, your average conspircacy theorist.
 
Regnad Kcin said:
Not just one lunar landing hoax, Luke. Several! And yet they keep blathering on.

It's a special breed of idiot, your average conspircacy theorist.
Click to expand...

Yes, I often wonder what the motivation would have been for hoaxing a lunar landing. It would appear that it failed to end communism.
 
About the other videos...

I've read some comments that the videos from the gas station and the Sheraton hotel were private property that the government confiscated as evidence in a criminal trial, so that explained why they were not released. But when I heard that they were releasing two videos, I thought one of them must be one of those two.

So is the reason that the Pentagon security tapes were released, that those are the ones the government owns? Are the other videos still in the government's hands, and is it up to the hotel and gas station owners to release them publicly?
 
This video shows the world that we have to be aware of terrorism. We must launch a pre-emptive strike against Antartica.
 
CurtC said:
So is the reason that the Pentagon security tapes were released, that those are the ones the government owns? Are the other videos still in the government's hands, and is it up to the hotel and gas station owners to release them publicly?
Click to expand...
Dunno the answer to that. But I will say that it's not wholly unreasonble to believe that there may be a "cover-up" going on in this instance. It could be that the Pentagon has or had defensive systems that they'd just as soon not advertise on TV (which systems obviously failed if they exist). Alternatively, they may not have any such systems, and it's that that they're not eager to publicize. Either way, if I were the Pentagon I'd be eager to find some loophole not to respond to a FOIA request.

That doesn't change the undisputed fact that an American Airlines 757 hit the Pentagon, of course. It simply means that just because the Loosers are wrong and/or lying about every material thing about 9-11 doesn't mean that they can't have stumbled onto something correct about something non-material.
 
Beerina said:
By the way, my wife informs me my brother-in-law is sucked in by loose change. She comes to me one day and says, "Have you seen this loose change web site?"
Click to expand...

My god! This is like these Body Snatchers movies, where everybody is slowly being transformed into zombies. Only this time around, their saying "Open your eyes" and "wake up" instead of "sleeeep"!
 
Pardalis said:
My god! This is like these Body Snatchers movies, where everybody is slowly being transformed into zombies. Only this time around, their saying "Open your eyes" and "wake up" instead of "sleeeep"!
Click to expand...

Ugh, does that mean the JREF forum will be the Donald Sutherland of the 'net, alone and crying in the middle of a sea of CT websites?
 
Can someone explain a small query(at risk of sounding Loose)how does a plane go straight at ground level into the pentagon? I get the impression the plane didn't crash at a steep dive angle,but went along the ground(as in geggy's animation higher up).
 
Azrael 5 said:
Can someone explain a small query(at risk of sounding Loose)how does a plane go straight at ground level into the pentagon? I get the impression the plane didn't crash at a steep dive angle,but went along the ground(as in geggy's animation higher up).
Click to expand...
In the same way a plane lands, only with wheels up. The plane cleared highway 395 by about 20 feet, breaking lamp poles on the way. It had taken 2 1/2 minutes to dive from 7,000 feet.
 
CurtC said:
I've read some comments that the videos from the gas station and the Sheraton hotel were private property that the government confiscated as evidence in a criminal trial, so that explained why they were not released. But when I heard that they were releasing two videos, I thought one of them must be one of those two.

So is the reason that the Pentagon security tapes were released, that those are the ones the government owns? Are the other videos still in the government's hands, and is it up to the hotel and gas station owners to release them publicly?
Click to expand...
I've read that the gubbmint confiscated 84 or 85 tapes, but I have no idea if that's true. It makes sense that they would collect as many tapes as possible. The CTs like to repeat a story that "hotel employees" watched a tape over and over in amazement until the FBI came to take it away. That story never says what hotel it was or what was supposedly on the tape. The standard CT excuse is applied: they were told to keep quiet. Well, the investigation is over, and no one is under orders to keep quiet about the Pentagon crash, as far as I know. In their response to the FOIA request, the gubbmint said they only had one additional tape (the one released two days ago) that actually showed anything relevant.
 
Gravy said:
I've read that the gubbmint confiscated 84 or 85 tapes, but I have no idea if that's true. It makes sense that they would collect as many tapes as possible. The CTs like to repeat a story that "hotel employees" watched a tape over and over in amazement until the FBI came to take it away. That story never says what hotel it was or what was supposedly on the tape. The standard CT excuse is applied: they were told to keep quiet. Well, the investigation is over, and no one is under orders to keep quiet about the Pentagon crash, as far as I know. In their response to the FOIA request, the gubbmint said they only had one additional tape (the one released two days ago) that actually showed anything relevant.
Click to expand...
And they've been repeating that claim for years now. You'd think, considering all the "research" they claim to be doing, someone from the CT movement would actually interview one of these employees (from the gas station, hotel, etc.) and get some corroborating evidence that this actually happened. But of course, they haven't. That's some hard research for ya... :rolleyes:
 
Gravy said:
I've read that the gubbmint confiscated 84 or 85 tapes, but I have no idea if that's true. It makes sense that they would collect as many tapes as possible. The CTs like to repeat a story that "hotel employees" watched a tape over and over in amazement until the FBI came to take it away. That story never says what hotel it was or what was supposedly on the tape. The standard CT excuse is applied: they were told to keep quiet. Well, the investigation is over, and no one is under orders to keep quiet about the Pentagon crash, as far as I know. In their response to the FOIA request, the gubbmint said they only had one additional tape (the one released two days ago) that actually showed anything relevant.
Click to expand...

The FOIA and court documents at http://www.flight77.info are helpful on this. According to the FOIA response (which the claimant had to SUE in order to get, btw), there were 85 tapes which were found -- upon searching -- to be "responsive" (i.e., relevant) to the FOIA request. Someone in the government (her identity is revealed in the documents, I don't recall off-hand) was given the job of reviewing these 85 tapes. This is all long, long after the investigation, btw. So the review was undertaken in response to the FOIA request -- presumably the tapes were reviewed by investigators a while ago.

Anyway, after viewing them, the government official replied that two showed the plane and/or the crash -- these are the two we have now seen. Since the other 83 didn't show anything (or so it is claimed), they were deemed "not responsive" (i.e., not relevant) to the FOIA request, and not released. Suits were quickly filed to make the govt release them anyway, and they are still pending. One of the tapes is from the Citgo, the other is from the Arlington *Doubletree* (IIRC), not the Sheraton -- these are described in the government's response to the FOIA document since the claimant specifically asked for the Citgo and Sheraton tapes. Presumably, neither shows anything either or they would've been released.

Lots of "presumably"s in there, I know.
 
I seriously don't know what the CTs expect from CITGO videos. Most security cameras are placed high and pointed down at the things they considered important: Potential thieves and robbers. They also tend to be focused for 'up close'. The exception to this would be parking lot cameras, and they what we seen so far is as good as it is likely to get.
 
This was shown on "Newsnight" on BBC2 last night, with the explanation that it was all because the CTers were a bunch of loonies. They did interview one of them who was doing his best not to sound like a looney, but it's a hard position to maintain.

I thought the film showed an aeroplane of some sort, though due to the framing and the focus it wasn't possible to say what sort. They also showed some good colour still photos of bits of aeroplane fuselage with the AA colours visible lying around the lawn of the Pentagon. They also asked where the passengers on that flight were if the flight hadn't crashed into the Pentagon.

Another item of interest was a computer simulation of the crash produced by a university, in which they looked at the structure of the building and the damage done and worked out how the plane had to have hit. This clearly showed how the wings were pretty much ripped off by structural columns, and concluded that the plane must have been pretty much daisy-cutting when it hit - essentially on a landing trajectory, close to touchdown. It was then pointed out that the video clip showed exactly what the simulation predicted.

But of course the BBC and Jeremy Paxton are all in the pay of the CIA or something, I suppose.

Rolfe.
 
Good, useful post at LC Forum

Someone named broodlinger at the LC Forum has taken the second Pentagon video, the one that has just a smoke trail visible in one frame, and has done a subtraction with the previous image. It's quite an interesting result:

The post is the third down in this thread, and contains this image:

calcm_analysis3.jpg
 
Beerina said:
The woo-ness of it all is exposed by simply noting there is no need to use a missle instead of a plane when you've used at least two planes that day already!

Why bother with a missle? You're already using planes on three other proven occasions! Why not use a plane for the fourth?

*snip*
Click to expand...

I think the consensus of (woos)opinion is that it was a U.S missile from a fighter jet that was scrambled to bring down the plane. :eye-poppi
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom