CANDO
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-16-06 04:24 PM
Original message |
GregD
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-16-06 04:28 PM
Response to Original message |
1. No jumbo jet in that vid bubba! |
|
I'm not buying it any more than before. This is crap. That's a missle or some other small aircraft.
|
mdmc
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-16-06 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
3. that 'looked' like a patriot missle |
|
sure didn't clear up anything.
|
CottonBear
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-16-06 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
6. I've never seen the video or any images of the Pentagon from 9-11 on TV. |
|
Edited on Tue May-16-06 04:35 PM by CottonBear
I was riding my horse that morning of 9-11 and then I spent the rest of the day at work listening to NPR and working on a 4pm deadline that I met. I didn't see a newspaper or TV until about 8 pm that night.
I've never focused on the Pentagon crash and only recently have read on DU about the missle theory. I know that the people on the plane are dead. However, un;ess the Pentagon has eliminated a bunch of frames from the video, I see no jetliner in that video clip. I do see what could be evidence of a missle of some sort. The plane flying into the WTC were huge. COuldn't miss seeing those. I'm really skeptical because you know that if any place has tons of cameras everywhere, it's the Pentagon. :tinfoilhat:
|
GregD
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-16-06 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
9. I know that the people on the plane are dead? |
|
Oh really? How do you know? Because the tee vee and the pretzeldent toal you so?
Not trying to pick a fight, but really - how do we know? There is little associated with 9/11 that I believe other than the images of buildings collapsing in moments that terrified everyone - but beyond that, I don't believe much.
|
pacalo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-16-06 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
14. I thought the same thing about some frames being missing. |
|
Edited on Tue May-16-06 06:01 PM by 8_year_nightmare
Brian Williams explained the reason we saw the plane's nose in the first frame, then the explosion in the next is due to the high speed of the plane, causing a blur. :eyes:
Surely the Pentagon had more than one security camera catching this. Why supply just this view?
|
truebrit71
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-16-06 04:31 PM
Response to Original message |
2. 1) These images are not new. 2) These images don't prove a darned thing... |
|
...I do not see a 757 anywhere in those clips...
|
mdmc
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-16-06 04:32 PM
Response to Original message |
EstimatedProphet
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-16-06 04:32 PM
Response to Original message |
5. Whatever it is is never in the frame! |
|
Edited on Tue May-16-06 04:33 PM by EstimatedProphet
They show a small part of it, then an explosion. There is no way to tell what that is!
|
opihimoimoi
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-16-06 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
7. Whatever became of the wreckage, the bodies(parts) and debris |
|
purses, wallets, clothes, etc????
Where is the Passenger list?
Who was on that Flight?
Gatta be sumthin left....
|
GregD
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-16-06 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
|
there is simply no explanation for the absence of marks on the adjacent walls for where the wings struck. Even the WTC showed slots where the wings entered. And no debris field on the lawn? And on and on and on...
|
MikeNearMcChord
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-16-06 04:48 PM
Response to Original message |
8. With all the money the Pentagon spends |
|
you'd think they would have cameras with better vision! Inconclusive! And I am not trying to be Art Bell here.
|
Alleycat
(992 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-16-06 05:38 PM
Response to Original message |
11. Is there a segment missing? |
|
I see something long and white come into the picture on the right, then I see the explosion. I never see the segment of the plane in the frame. Was this edited?
|
Roland99
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-16-06 05:42 PM
Response to Original message |
12. Awfully damn small aircraft to be a commercial airliner |
|
Maybe an Embraer or something but no 757 or whatever it was.
|
lindisfarne
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-16-06 05:49 PM
Response to Original message |
13. Warning about ogrish.com: there are porn links within it; be careful on |
|
employer-owned computers.
|
Marr
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-16-06 06:07 PM
Response to Original message |
15. Looks like a plane to me. |
|
Well, it doesn't "look" like anything more than a white blur, in fact- but that video seems to be taken at a fairly low framerate. Add to that the fact that the plane is said to have been moving at 350mph, and I'm surprised it was ever in the shot at all.
It looks like a plane coming in accross the grass and plowing into the building. That's also alot more believable that actually managing to hit such a small building while the plane was in the air. It looks like they sort of "landed" into it.
|
Rainscents
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-16-06 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #15 |
16. Bottom line is... if it was 757, you can NOT miss it!!! |
|
757 is HUGE aircraft!!! Only way one misses 757, he/orshe MUST be totally blind!!!
|
Marr
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-16-06 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #16 |
17. There's almost zero sense of scale- or distance- in the shot. |
|
Edited on Tue May-16-06 06:17 PM by Marr
I don't see how any size can be judged at all. I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a close Learjet and a distant 757 there.
|
InaneAnanity
(910 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-16-06 06:19 PM
Response to Original message |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Apr 25th 2024, 08:08 PM
Response to Original message |