9/11 Physicists investigate

[creativedreams]

The top video is the actual footage of the 9/11 plane hitting the pentagon.

The bottom video is a re-enactment produced by physicists investigating 9/11 who want to show what a Boeing 757 should have looked like and how the damage doesn't fit.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Good for you?

 

[ADK_Forever]

What the hell is the diff?

Another conspiracy thread? :doh

 

[Polynikes]

What the hell is the diff?

Another conspiracy thread? :doh

The difference is the fact that the video shows something that is suspected to not be the plane that is said to have hit the Pentagon. Do I really need to stress the potential implications that would result if it indeed wasn't a plane, or the exact plane that is believed to have struck the Pentagon?

I am not advocating any conspiracy, but to be so dismissive as to say 'just another conspiracy thread' is close minded. How about you keep your narrow minded views to yourself?

I think a more interesting fact surrounding the Pentagon attack is the fact there is in excess of 6,000 cameras in Washington D.C and only one of them caught the image of the plane striking the Pentagon? Why was the F.B.I so quick to obtain every video tape in the surrounding area? I understand the need to gather evidence, but then why never release them? Are those not legitimate questions ADK?

 

[ADK_Forever]

The difference is the fact that the video shows something that is suspected to not be the plane that is said to have hit the Pentagon.

You seem to be making a lot of assumptions.

I can't see any discernible image in that graphic. I can't tell if it is a plane or if it is not. Why assume it is not?

I am not advocating any conspiracy, but to be so dismissive as to say 'just another conspiracy thread' is close minded. How about you keep your narrow minded views to yourself?

Narrow minded? At least I'm looking at what facts I can see here and from other reading on this. This thread, I assume, was opened to gather other views. If you don't like my opinion you are welcome to ignore it.

I think a more interesting fact surrounding the Pentagon attack is the fact there is in excess of 6,000 cameras in Washington D.C and only one of them caught the image of the plane striking the Pentagon?

Why was the F.B.I so quick to obtain every video tape in the surrounding area? I understand the need to gather evidence, but then why never release them?

Let's see. The FBI was conducting an investigation. Wouldn't it make sense that they would confiscate all evidence?

How do you know only one video caught the plane if none of them have been released? If the vid shown here shows a plane (and I believe I've seen vids from that camera that do indeed show a plane hitting the building.) then there is your proof. A plane hit the building. End of conspiracy.

Are those not legitimate questions ADK?

No they're not because you're ignoring what facts are right in front of you. Personally, I think this line of thinking is way off base. I give it as much credence as the gov't planting explosives in the twin towers and flying jets into them. But, that's another kettle of fish.

Also, there are other threads already devoted to this. It might help you to seek them out and see what was discussed in them. Maybe they will support your theories, maybe not.

 

[Polynikes]

You seem to be making a lot of assumptions.

I can't see any discernible image in that graphic. I can't tell if it is a plane or if it is not. Why assume it is not?

I have assumed nothing. The video posted is an artist's rendition of what the image is expected to look like given the circumstances. Granted there is a myriad of different factors that could distort the images, I understand that. I also understand the lack of evidence does not automatically make it a conspiracy.

Point out one assumption I have made.

Narrow minded? At least I'm looking at what facts I can see here and from other reading on this. This thread, I assume, was opened to gather other views. If you don't like my opinion you are welcome to ignore it.

It's not a matter of liking your opinion when it pertains to the subject matter, but when you drop in with one liners that don't contribute anything of value to it, then don't drop by at all. I welcome any point of view, as long as it is constructive.

Let's see. The FBI was conducting an investigation. Wouldn't it make sense that they would confiscate all evidence?

I address this in my post, you must've skipped that part.

How do you know only one video caught the plane if none of them have been released? If the vid shown here shows a plane (and I believe I've seen vids from that camera that do indeed show a plane hitting the building.) then there is your proof. A plane hit the building. End of conspiracy.

I am not 100% that it is the only video of the plane striking the Pentagon that has been publicly released, but I am 99% sure. I welcome someone to prove me wrong on this. You still don't address the question as to why the F.B.I didn't release any other surveillance videos, even when there has been pressure to do so.

No they're not because you're ignoring what facts are right in front of you. Personally, I think this line of thinking is way off base. I give it as much credence as the gov't planting explosives in the twin towers and flying jets into them. But, that's another kettle of fish.

What facts am I ignoring? I am stating that it is a matter that deserves to be looked in to and that I find it odd that no other camera happened to catch the plane. I never state that I suspect the government was behind it or it was a cruise missle or any other theories. All I asked was why weren't other videos released. Please don't put words in my mouth or make assumptions of my thinking.

Also, there are other threads already devoted to this. It might help you to seek them out and see what was discussed in them. Maybe they will support your theories, maybe not

That's nice, I didn't start this thread, I just responded to it as you did. Also, once again I'm curious as to what theories I presented.

I never once expressed that I suspect it wasn't a plane or anything of that nature. Do not confuse me with a 9/11 truther, because I am not. I just believe there are some questions that still haven't been sufficiently answered. I am not some conspiracy theorist who will refute any claim because it doesn't correspond with my opinion, that is just ignorance.

 

[Arch Enemy]

It's been 7 + years, and the conspiracy theorists have gained almost zero ground in that time. Speculate all you want, but repeating the same information that has been out there since two months after the attacks is not helpful but merely laughable.

 

[Polynikes]

It's been 7 + years, and the conspiracy theorists have gained almost zero ground in that time. Speculate all you want, but repeating the same information that has been out there since two months after the attacks is not helpful but merely laughable.

I agree. There is so much evidence refuting any conspiracy theory that anyone still actually believing in it is just not objectively looking at the facts. The conspiracy theorists' lack of evidence other than skeptical hypothesis' trying to connect a string of coincidences is self delusional. It is almost a state of denial

Just to avoid any confusion about me condtradicting myself, I stated above that there were still questions that haven't been answered, but that in itself is far from supporting a conspiracy theory. I think it's interesting to hear varying points of view and do not usually dismiss an opinion without some thought or research in to it.

I wonder if there is a psychological condition that makes a particular person more prone to believe in conspiracy theories.

 

[Arch Enemy]

I agree. There is so much evidence refuting any conspiracy theory that anyone still actually believing in it is just not objectively looking at the facts. The conspiracy theorists' lack of evidence other than skeptical hypothesis' trying to connect a string of coincidences is self delusional. It is almost a state of denial

Just to avoid any confusion about me condtradicting myself, I stated above that there were still questions that haven't been answered, but that in itself is far from supporting a conspiracy theory. I think it's interesting to hear varying points of view and do not usually dismiss an opinion without some thought or research in to it.

I wonder if there is a psychological condition that makes a particular person more prone to believe in conspiracy theories.

And I agree with you.

There will always been a question we will not be able to answer about the event. There will always be those who try and answer the question as they see fit but one can only wait to see if there's enough support for it to become "fact".

People still question whether or not Emperor Nero set Rome alight just to blames the Jews. As a nation where Zionism is a fairly strong friend, many people believe that Nero did intentionally set Rome on fire to blame the Jews. Does that make it wrong because we have a predisposition to Jews, and not to Roman authority? No. Does it make it wrong that we have a predisposition to the American President than Islamic Fundamentalists? No.

But we can always question, and whenever we can no longer question (or wish to) then we know we are in real danger.

 

[the sine cura]

Honestly, the videos look quite similar in the explosions. Old news, really. Still, I would not be surprised if any conspiracy theory was indeed correct. The government can hide so much info it isn't even funny. They are so powerful, they can get away with something like that.

 

[Oftencold]

Honestly, the videos look quite similar in the explosions. Old news, really. Still, I would not be surprised if any conspiracy theory was indeed correct. The government can hide so much info it isn't even funny. They are so powerful, they can get away with something like that.

I never can grasp why people assume that Governments that can't build a short road in less than a decade and 300% over budget, that can't secure the boarders, and that can't function in the absence of polls and Teleprompters, can at the same time conduct trans-generational Machiavellian conspiracies.

 

[the sine cura]

I never can grasp why people assume that Governments that can't build a short road in less than a decade and 300% over budget, that can't secure the boarders, and that can't function in the absence of polls and Teleprompters, can at the same time conduct trans-generational Machiavellian conspiracies.

The government has the world at its fingertips. I am not saying I truly believe in such a theory, rather that it is indeed possible. If they wanted to pull something off like that, they could. Hiding things is the one thing the gov. is good at.

 

[Jessica]

The government has the world at its fingertips. I am not saying I truly believe in such a theory, rather that it is indeed possible. If they wanted to pull something off like that, they could. Hiding things is the one thing the gov. is good at.

There it is! A walking contradiction.
You do not truly believe a conspiracy is possible, but believe the government is great at hiding things and they could pull something like this off.

 

[danarhea]

911 UPDATE:

"Scientists" at Alex Jones Central have determined that the aircraft which hit the Pentagon was actually a UFO that the government brought in from Area 51 as part of a plan to assist aliens in taking over the world. Piloting the craft was Elvis Presley, long thought dead, but rumors had been floating around that his death was faked, and he was actually a government agent.

BREAKING NEWS:

Elvis is now officially dead. Conspiracy theorists around the world are mourning his passsing, as one of their favorite conspiracy theories has now died with him.

 

[ADK_Forever]

I am not 100% that it is the only video of the plane striking the Pentagon that has been publicly released, but I am 99% sure. I welcome someone to prove me wrong on this.

That's like saying that you believe in fairies so, prove me wrong. You show me any evidence to support your 99% confidence and then I'll waste my time addressing them. Nothing personal.

 

[Polynikes]

That's like saying that you believe in fairies so, prove me wrong. You show me any evidence to support your 99% confidence and then I'll waste my time addressing them. Nothing personal.

I am interesting in hearing your logic behind how my saying I am 99% sure that no other videos have been released of the plane striking the Pentagon besides the 1 security camera we've discussed equates to me believing in fairies. There are only a handful of things I am 100% sure of, so I generally shy away from saying I am 100% sure of a given matter.

Also, a scientific investigation would hastily point out that fairies don't exist. A more accurate analogy would be the one of religion and faith. For instance, if someone says they believe in God and asks you to prove them wrong. Have fun.

I have done about 30 minutes of research trying to find any other video and I have not found one. What I did find was that the Sheraton National Hotel definitely would've captured the footage of the strike, but the F.B.I confiscated the videos. A D.o.D gas station, open to only military personnel would've captured the footage, but the F.B.I confiscated the footage. And that the Virginia Transportation Department would've also captured the footage. This is all besides the countless Pentagon cameras that would've also captured the footage.


Also, my evidence is supported by the fact that no one on this forum, or Youtube, has ever posted a different video of the Pentagon strike. You would think by now some people would've come across it if it existed.

Your arguments and logic across a number of threads is really starting to disappoint me, and I am beginning to see why people address you in the manner they do. Nothing personal.


An interesting site

http://pagesperso-orange.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/pages-en/fct-videos.html


Again, I understand the fact that lack of evidence does not point to a conspiracy. Also, just to keep you on track, I am solely asking the question of why other videos haven't been released and don't believe in or advocate any non factual conspiracy theories concerning 9/11.

 

[ADK_Forever]

Your arguments and logic across a number of threads is really starting to disappoint me, and I am beginning to see why people address you in the manner they do. Nothing personal.

Those who depend solely on right wing rhetoric, to support arguments, don't like any of us who shine a light on their dark whacko rants.

Again, I understand the fact that lack of evidence does not point to a conspiracy. Also, just to keep you on track, I am solely asking the question of why other videos haven't been released and don't believe in or advocate any non factual conspiracy theories concerning 9/11.

Maybe the FBI isn't ready to release them. Maybe they're still investigating. Why don't you ask them? To assume that because you have spent an entire 30 minutes looking for videos on the internet and haven't found any concludes anything is... pretty lame. Stating such an assumption, based solely on "lack" of evidence, insinuates that you think something nefarious is going on, as in conspiracy theories. And I'll stick to my own analogies, thank you. Nothing personal. :2wave:

 

[Polynikes]

Those who depend solely on right wing rhetoric, to support arguments, don't like any of us who shine a light on their dark whacko rants.

The only thing I have witnessed you shine light on is your own intellectual shortcomings. Putting partisanship aside, seeing how I never mentioned it to begin with, your arguments are simply redudant and do little to prove your points.

Maybe the FBI isn't ready to release them. Maybe they're still investigating. Why don't you ask them?

Throwing around maybes, wasn't it you who incorrectly accused me of assuming a lot earlier. I don't need to ask the F.B.I, because there is already case after case, thousands of pages of documents asking the very same questions.

Also, for what reason could they possibly justify holding these tapes for 7+ years? An on going criminal investigation?

To assume that because you have spent an entire 30 minutes looking for videos on the internet and haven't found any concludes anything is... pretty lame. Stating such an assumption, based solely on "lack" of evidence, insinuates that you think something nefarious is going on, as in conspiracy theories. And I'll stick to my own analogies, thank you. Nothing personal. :2wave.

30 minutes is more than ample time given the controversy regarding this subject. The second a video got released to the public it would flood the internet just like the first, and only did.

You also have a bad habit at trying to assume what others are thinking, and are horrible at it none the less. Stating a question as to why the F.B.I has not released other videotapes in no way insinuates anything, except for me wondering why they haven't released the tapes.

Stating such an assumption, based solely on "lack" of evidence, insinuates that you think something nefarious is going on, as in conspiracy theories

So your response to me asking what I was assuming earlier is this?
Well done............ and ironic that you make assumptions about my supposed assumptions, another star on your logic grade sheet.

Stick to your own analogies all you want, just please for future reference, try to make them fitting to the subject at hand.

I have done my research, now show me 1 other video of the Pentagon strike. I can almost guarantee you've looked, haven't found anything and resorted back to trying to take the argument off track with your ad hominen attacks.

 

[Jessica]

That's like saying that you believe in fairies so, prove me wrong. You show me any evidence to support your 99% confidence and then I'll waste my time addressing them. Nothing personal.

Fairies do exist.
Here is one now:

:mrgreen:

 

[Agent Ferris]

The top video is the actual footage of the 9/11 plane hitting the pentagon.

The bottom video is a re-enactment produced by physicists investigating 9/11 who want to show what a Boeing 757 should have looked like and how the damage doesn't fit.

Then where did the bodies come from that matched the flight roster? Where did the tons and tons of airplane wreckage come from? Why was a huge air conditioning unit weighing thousands of pounds pushed towards the building?

Oh and if a 757 should appear in the video then why wouldn't the supposed rocket as well? :roll:

 

[Agent Ferris]

I am interesting in hearing your logic behind how my saying I am 99% sure that no other videos have been released of the plane striking the Pentagon besides the 1 security camera we've discussed equates to me believing in fairies.

Why don't you go ahead and actually prove that there are videos which haven't been released, to my knowledge all video evidence pertaining to the pentagon hit has been released.

 

[Agent Ferris]

I have done about 30 minutes of research trying to find any other video and I have not found one.

Well this took about all of 2 seconds here's a twoofer youtube video which has both surveillance camera videos the first in color the 2nd in black and white:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paWiZ2Y8fRg"]YouTube - Rare Pentagon 9-11 Surveillance Camera Video of Impact[/ame]

 

[Agent Ferris]

I have assumed nothing. The video posted is an artist's rendition of what the image is expected to look like given the circumstances.

Well apparently this artist doesn't know a thing about frames per second. I find that twoofers are often defeated by a very simple logical question, so tell me if that's what a plane should look like then why shouldn't a rocket or missile be visible in the video then too?

 

[Polynikes]

Why don't you go ahead and actually prove that there are videos which haven't been released, to my knowledge all video evidence pertaining to the pentagon hit has been released.

Uhm, There are videos that haven't been released, they were confiscated by the F.B.I as reported by numerous sources. I wasn't aware this fact was in question.


October 14, 2004: Scott A. Hodes, on behalf of his client Scott Bingham, sends a request to David Hardy of the FBI requesting any videos "that may have captured the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001". The request letter mentions videotapes from the Citgo Gas Station and the Sheraton National Hotel.
November 3, 2004: The FBI replies to Bingham's request stating that their search "revealed no record responsive to your FOIA request".
November 17, 2004: Hodes files an appeal of Bingham's FOIA request with the U.S Department of Justice (DOJ), citing evidence that the videotapes mentioned in the original request exist.
December 15, 2004: Christopher J. Farrell of Judicial Watch, Inc. writes to James Hogan in the Office of Freedom of Information/Security Review of the DOD requesting that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), DOD, and FBI produce:
any and all agency records concerning, relating to, or reflecting the following subjects:

(1) Video camera recordings obtained by federal official(s) and/or law enforcement from a Nexcomm/Citgo gas station in the vicinity of the Pentagon on or about September 11, 2001.

(2) Pentagon security video camera recording(s) showing Flight 77 strike and/or hit and/or crash into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

(3) Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) video camera recording(s) obtained by any federal official(s) and/or law enforcement from the Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT") and/or the VDOT "Smart Traffic Center" on or about September 11, 2001.
March 7, 2005: The DOJ replies to Hodes' November 17 appeal, admitting that it did possess records responsive to the request but that it could release the records because such a release "could reasonably be expected to interfere with law enforcement proceedings."
January 26, 2005: The DOD advises Judicial Watch, Inc. that it possesses a videotape responsive to the December 15, 2004 request but declines to produce the videotape, citing U.S.C 552(b)(7)(A).
March 8, 2005: Bingham's attorney files a lawsuit with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia stating that the FBI is in violation of the FOIA for "failing to adequately respond to plaintiff's FOIA request, including failing to adequately search for and release records that the plaintiff believes the agency is in possession of, and for failing to timely respond to the plaintiff's administrative appeal."
April 18, 2005: The DOJ files a response to Bingham's March 8 lawsuit denying the plaintiff's request and asking the judge to dismiss the plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice.
April 19, 2005: District Judge Paul L. Friedman orders the defendants to file a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment in the case brought by Bingham on or before June 21, 2005.
June 10, 2005: The DOD denies Judicial Watch's administrative appeal, claiming that the video is exempt as part of an ongoing investigation involving Zacarias Moussaoui.
August 1, 2005: Jeffrey D. Kahn, an attorney for the DOJ's Civil Division files a 23-page MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Scans of the document are posted on Flight77.info.
August 29, 2005: Hodes files a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and a STATEMENT OF FACT ON WHICH THERE EXIST A GENUINE ISSUE TO BE LITIGATED in response to the DOJ's motion for summary judgment.
September 9, 2005: Kahn files a REPLY BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
September 9, 2005: Special Agent Jacqueline Maguire of the FBI's Counterterrorism Division files a DECLARATION describing her search for records responsive to Bingham's FOIA request. Maguire admits to determining that 85 videotapes in the FBI's possession are "potentially responsive" the request, that she personally viewed 29 of the tapes, and that she located only one videotape that showed the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon. Maguire also refers to "one videotape taken from a closed circuit television at a Doubletree Hotel in Arlington Virginia," but states that it did not show the impact of Flight 77.
September 26, 2005: Hodes files a request seeking "copies of 85 videotapes in the possession of the FBI described in the declaration of Special Agent Jacqueline Maguire dated September 7, 2005.
October 20, 2005: The DOJ sends a letter to Hodes claiming that the requested material is exempt.
October 24, 2005: Hodes appeals the DOJ's October 20 claim that its material is exempt.
February 22, 2006: Judicial Watch, Inc. files a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the Department of Defense for its refusal to disclose records sought under the FOIA request.
May 5, 2006: Judge Friedman orders the defendants to show cause on or before May 26, 2006 why their motion for summary judgment should not be denied as moot, noting that the criminal proceedings against Moussaoui have ended.
May 16, 2006: Judicial Watch obtains two videos from the DOD, and posts them on their website. The site is down for about half of the day due to demand.
September 15, 2006: Judicial Watch announces the release of video from CITGO gas station. 3 The video consists mostly of views of the interior of the gas station and does not appear to capture the attack.
December 2, 2006: Judicial Watch obtains a video recording from the Doubletree Hotel in Arlington. The video, which does not include a view of the Pentagon's facade, shows an explosion but does not capture an approaching jetliner. 4


Another Pentagon Video Released - Showing Nothing

9-11 Research: Pentagon Attack Footage

 

[Polynikes]

Well apparently this artist doesn't know a thing about frames per second. I find that twoofers are often defeated by a very simple logical question, so tell me if that's what a plane should look like then why shouldn't a rocket or missile be visible in the video then too?

I'm not sure if you followed this thread, because you are making about as much sense as ADK.

I do not question anything the video shows, I do not question the authenticity of the video, I do not question whether it is a plane or not. All I have said, repeatedly, and will not do so again because you are too lazy or incompetent to follow a discussion, is that I was interested as to why more videos weren't released.


So please, get your facts straight before you proceed with your misplaced attempts to identify me as a 9/11 truther. Or 'twoofer' as you say in 'l33t' internet speak.