Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » New Pentagon footage from hotel
| Re: New Pentagon footage from hotel [message #269185 is a reply to message #269176] |
Wed, 27 June 2007 11:54   |
 |
IronWarrior
Messages: 2460
Registered: November 2004
Location: England UK
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Crimson wrote on Wed, 27 June 2007 12:58 |
| IronWarrior wrote on Wed, 27 June 2007 10:39 |
http://youtube.com/watch?v=L75Gga92WO8
I dont see no plane hitting a building here, to be honest, I would expect a 757, whatever it was, to do more damage then that, lol.
To me, looking at it, that looks more like a missile hit.
But, am sure there is more video capture like this, would be nice to see more impact angles, to get a bigger picture before deciding for real, if it was a plane or a missile.
| warranto wrote on Wed, 27 June 2007 12:29 |
Of course not! It's a biased source! 
|
Is there such a thing as an un-biased source?
Me thinks not.
|
The problem is, in that video, you are probably imagining that you're looking at a 2-story building. That is a 5 story building! (Or is it 6)... it's a problem on scale. The building is so huge that you can't tell how far away the camera is from the plane.
For reference:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=arlington,+va&i e=UTF8&ll=38.870654,-77.055724&spn=0.014367,0.02002&t=k&z=16& ;amp ;amp ;om=1
This is the Pentagon from Google Maps. Notice the scale at the bottom of the screen.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=mall+of+america+min nesota&ie=UTF8&ll=44.854256,-93.242319&spn=0.013082,0.02002&t=k& amp; amp; amp;z=16&om=1
This is the Mall of America in Minnesota. I believe it's the biggest mall in the US with an indoor amusement park and over 500 stores. The Pentagon is almost as big as this mall!
It's a problem of scale. Since you haven't ever seen the Pentagon up close, in person, your brain has trouble fathoming just how huge this building is, so it's easy for you to think that something rather small and missile-sized struck it rather than a commercial aircraft.
But, I'll keep coming back to this. The plane passed right by Blazer's condo in Arlington, Virginia and he saw it with his own eyes, moments before it struck the building. He SAW the plane. He SAW the logo on it. He could see the people inside it.
|
Whatever the size of the building is, I still see no plane, but it still does look like a missile hit.
[Updated on: Wed, 27 June 2007 11:59] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: New Pentagon footage from hotel [message #269186 is a reply to message #269170] |
Wed, 27 June 2007 12:00 |
 |
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| IronWarrior wrote on Wed, 27 June 2007 11:39 |
http://youtube.com/watch?v=L75Gga92WO8
I dont see no plane hitting a building here, to be honest, I would expect a 757, whatever it was, to do more damage then that, lol.
To me, looking at it, that looks more like a missile hit.
But, am sure there is more video capture like this, would be nice to see more impact angles, to get a bigger picture before deciding for real, if it was a plane or a missile.
| warranto wrote on Wed, 27 June 2007 12:29 |
Of course not! It's a biased source!
|
Is there such a thing as an un-biased source?
Me thinks not.
|
With the shutter speed that camera has, you couldn't even see the white vehicle that is passing by (1:26). You see the front of it in one frame, and it is gone the next where you see the flash of light signaling the explosion.
That biased source comment was intended as sarcasm.. as that is usually the response given by people who do not look at something.
|
|
|
|
| Re: New Pentagon footage from hotel [message #269203 is a reply to message #269177] |
Wed, 27 June 2007 13:07 |
 |
Crimson
Messages: 7429
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
| ST3ALTH wrote on Wed, 27 June 2007 10:59 |
Despite all the evidence and proof to the contrary, I will still stick with what I've been manipulated to believe because I don't want to admit that I was wrong and I have been owned.
|
I translated for you.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: New Pentagon footage from hotel [message #269236 is a reply to message #269220] |
Wed, 27 June 2007 15:36 |
Rocko
Messages: 833
Registered: January 2007
Location: Long Beach, California
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| IronWarrior wrote on Wed, 27 June 2007 16:19 |
As always in this forum and by its users, everyone has ignored the first post and the topic.
|
LOL
black and proud
|
|
|
|
| Re: New Pentagon footage from hotel [message #269288 is a reply to message #268922] |
Wed, 27 June 2007 22:34 |
 |
Renerage
Messages: 1223
Registered: May 2005
Location: Hamilton ON, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| ST3ALTH wrote on Tue, 26 June 2007 16:48 |
The plane (if there was one) would simply skid on the ground and then just totally miss it, the pentagon aint tall at all, the odds of the pentagon. And there wasn't a single mark on the lawn next to it.
Also, 9/11 the WTC attacks, there were missiles on the bottom of the plane..
EDIT:
Everyone should look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E3oIbO0AWE "Loose Change" it is very well informed and it looks on every aspect of the attacks.
|
Wow, your pretty fucking stupid if you beleive that.
You beleive anyone fuckin types in a youtube video.
Anyone who states only certain points, makes it look like their video is the truth.
The pentagon is fucking massive, like I mean, MASSIVE, It's not the tallest, but it covers a large surface area.
Not to mention, they've already mentioned-
THE PLANE WAS FLYING LOW FOR ABOUT 15 MILES BEFORE IT HIT THE PENTAGON
That video in the first post, is bullshit.
Someone else trying to prove it was a missle-
How about all the Wheels, Engines, Turbines, Cockpit, Blackbox that they found at the scene?
Your going to say thats all from a missle?
A pissed off noob Once said:
I DESLIKE YOU!
|
|
|
|
| Re: New Pentagon footage from hotel [message #269316 is a reply to message #268907] |
Thu, 28 June 2007 04:12 |
 |
ron paul
Messages: 103
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
Just to kind of clarify what jball said.
Why would the government use a missile IN PLACE of an air liner. At least if they use the air liner they can say terrorists done it. You see a missile can't be hijacked by terrorists so it's going to be harder to blame it on terrorists. The missile would just be doing what it was told. Something about computers or some such controlling it? Who knows what a computer is, never heard of of that word before.
So yeah, it would probably wouldn't cost much more to arrange an air liner to hit the towers than missile. If the US government is so deceptive (and it is quite deceptive) it would use an Airliner rather than a missile to orchestrate a terrorist attack. So therefore it wasn't a missile any of you seen. So by using logic we've concluded that it was an air liner and not a missile.
Also I'd like to take this time to point out that just about everyone that posts here is barely intelligible. So don't try and back your stupid missile theories or try and explain that it was an airliner because only it would appear warranto and a few others have any understanding of basic physics.
(note: Zunnie has always been a retard anyway. That much is certain in everyones mind)
If the US government took any part in 9/11 it was to sit back and allow it to happen rather than directly orchestrating it. And it to be honest it sounds like it was orchestrated by a third party that isn't the US government. Probably the terrorist group Al Qaeda. They seem like the most likely candidates.
this is more common than the self-diagnosis of asperger's in the goon population how is it obsCURE FUCKKK
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: New Pentagon footage from hotel [message #269379 is a reply to message #269358] |
Thu, 28 June 2007 11:08 |
|
Renerage
Messages: 1223
Registered: May 2005
Location: Hamilton ON, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Crimson wrote on Thu, 28 June 2007 12:12 |
Once again, please refer to my reply where I remind you how fucking huge the Pentagon is...
|
Ok, I'm going to finish this "It was a missle" debate once and for all-
Google "Pentagon Plane Photos"
Youll see parts EVERYWHERE outside the pentagon.
You know why you dont see any after the fires?
Because, it melted down, into nothing.
That fire reaches thousands of degrees, and easily melts metal. It's because of their Jet Fuel.
You dumbasses really think they would tell us a plane over a missle?
If they wanted us to fear terrorists more, it woulda ben a missle.
The up-tight security at the plane terminals justify this, as they were tighter then a virgin's pussy for months.
now, someones going to tell me-
THOSE ARE PLANTED PARTS
THOSE ARE FAKE
PHOTOSHOP FTW
If this is you, dont even bother posting your ignorance.
A pissed off noob Once said:
I DESLIKE YOU!
|
|
|
|
| Re: New Pentagon footage from hotel [message #269388 is a reply to message #268907] |
Thu, 28 June 2007 11:52 |
 |
jnz
Messages: 3396
Registered: July 2006
Location: 30th century
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
fire does not reach 1000s of degrees in the open. even if you are burning jet fuel, petrol, petrolium, hydrogen, even if you use an oxidizer like nitrus oxide it doesn't go above 1000 degrees in the open. tbh, though i don't really care what hit the pentagon or who destroyed the twin towers.
[Updated on: Thu, 28 June 2007 11:52] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: New Pentagon footage from hotel [message #269508 is a reply to message #268907] |
Thu, 28 June 2007 20:49 |
 |
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
Don't have a lot of time to post, seeing as how I've got laundry to do and it's late enough already... but I would like to throw my $0.02 in here. You can take my word for it or not- I really don't care; I don't have the time or the will to go digging around the internet for links right now.
Off the top of my head, reasons why so-called conspiracy "evidence" is bullshit:
1. Why did the military/government confiscate footage of the Pentagon being struck?
Simple answer. The Pentagon, contrary to what some of you may believe, is a military installation. Given that the attack did quite a bit of damage to a large section of the building, don't you think that footage of the attack could provide future attackers intelligence about the building's weaknesses? Have you ever heard of a military willing to risk exposing a weakness that could allow a determined attacker to decapitate its command structure in one fell swoop? No shit they confiscated that footage- and they'd have been complete boneheads not to.
2. There wasn't any wreckage!
Look closer. If any of you nincompoops had ever bothered to research major air disasters, you would find that the intense heat generated by burning jet fuel can, and frequently does, consume the wreckage. Indeed, it doesn't take much more than a ruptured fuel line at the wrong time to create those conditions- on at least one occasion that I am aware of, an airliner's wing caught fire in flight after an engine explosion, and the fire consumed nearly half the wing before the crew cut off fuel flow to the damaged section. Also, airliners are designed to be durable from the inside out- to withstand higher internal pressure against lower external pressure. They are not designed to survive head-on collisions with solid objects at several hundred miles per hour. Remember how many itty bitty pieces TWA Flight 800 was found in? Yeah- and that plane hit the water.
3. The World Trade Center collapsed rather than toppling!
It was designed to do exactly that from the moment of its conception in the 1960s. Why? Think of what would happen if that tall of a building fell over laterally in downtown Manhattan. In the event of a structural failure, the buildings were designed to collapse evenly, exactly as one would expect from a controlled demolition. The actual collapse was somewhat messier than an explosive demolition would have been (check out footage of such demolitions for a clue), mainly due to the uneven distribution of structural damage after the impact of a fucking airliner loaded with fuel. The plans factored in airplane impacts, but assumed that such impacts would be accidental, the result of navigational errors at the end of a long flight (with a light fuel load). They did not anticipate a deliberate attack. If it were not for the fire, the buildings would likely not have fallen at all.
That's all I've got time for. Take all that with a grain of salt if you will, but it's all the truth.
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.
|
|
|
|
| Re: New Pentagon footage from hotel [message #269520 is a reply to message #269508] |
Thu, 28 June 2007 22:11 |
|
IronWarrior
Messages: 2460
Registered: November 2004
Location: England UK
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
I will reply to 1.
1) It was shown all over the world on TV.
2) There was pictures in every News Paper.
3) There was graphic pictures made to show where it was hit.
4) Graphic pictures was shown on TV shows about the attack on it.
5) Graphic video to recreate the attack run on the same spot, in alot of TV shows about the day.
Pentagon is meant to be the Worlds more secure air zone but a 747 managed to strike it, really makes me think, why they didn't go for the White house instead?
[Updated on: Thu, 28 June 2007 22:14] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon Nov 25 17:07:42 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01837 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
The nose of the plane would be a lot bigger than that, even compaired against a 5 story building.
