COMMENTS:
It didn't show it clearly enough, so the conspiracy theorist will continue.
I wasn't expecting anything conclusive as there is only so much detail you can get from a CCTV camera, half a mile away.
No change. That 5 year delay will be viewed as seriously undermining the credibility.
^Apparantly it was held back until the Zacarias Moussaoui was over.
*Zacarias Moussaoui CASE
There was also footage from the Sheritan hotel and a local petrol station the apparantly showed the crash. Until that is released this part of the conspiracy theory will continue.
Plus, seeing the snippet ... I couldn't tell it was a plane. I don't see it putting any accusations to rest.
My opinion hasnt changed, I saw the real footage, not the fake released yesterday, this footage was filmed at the site of the moon landing and stolen by a saskwatch and buried on the grassy knowl.
by ABC on Wed May 17, 06 8:30am
[+]
^my sentiments exactly. That being said, conspiracy theorists will never be satisfied. If the plane had been clearly seen in the video they would have countered it was filmed in a hollywood movie studio. You know the same studio that the moon landing was filmed in.
The new tapes don't show shit by way of anything significantly difrnt
A police officer in Waco Texas said it best "you can't reason with a crazy person".
It won't change the nuthead's views on this. It is obvious it isn't a missile. It is way too big, unless of course if they used an ICBM which would have destroyed the whole building.
There are numerous photos of the wreckage there, fuselage, landing gear, etc. A plane is missing from American Airlines inventory as are a bunch of people. You didn't see this change anyone's mind either. Of course, Big Foot and the Loch Ness monster exist, Space Aliens landed as Nazca, etc.
That video could have easily been edited/doctored. When you put the video into slow motion there are 5 frames of the actual plane and the explosion. There are only 2 frames of the plane itself, the other 3 are the explosion. It's not that hard to insert the plane into the video, especially with the technology available.
Those 'conspiracy theories' you talk of are the truth. We were just talking about this the other day, herzog.
Still no-one has explained how a plane with a 190 foot wing span disappeared into a hole of approximately 14 - 20 feet diameter without leaving ANY debris outside.
Let's not forget the many eye-witnesses who saw not a plane but a missile hitting the Pentagon. No they weren't Russians or illegal immigrants or Communists. They were US citizens.
Come on, let's not be silly about this. We'll talk about the rest of the 9/11 attack some other time but you really are blinkered if you believe it was a 747 that hit the Pentagon.
But it does raise an interesting point for me, nowhere near the issue stated. Just a few weeks ago, we were all debating the question, "Are we all ready for a 9/11 film?" The Pentagon must think so, because they're provided one of their own.
Sorry, "they've".
Get a grip keith. There were dozens of witnesses who saw a plane. In case you haven't seen an airplane in a while, I will point out that the wings are very thin compared to the rest of the plane. At the angle the plane came in the wings would have essentially disintegrated on impact (ie, they hit the ground). This is more true considering the fuselage hole (in the Pentagon).
"without leaving ANY debris outside."
This claim is ridiculous. I can even find photos on conspiracy sites showing the remnants of landing gear, parts of the fuselage and engine.
" Come on, let's not be silly about this. We'll talk about the rest of the 9/11 attack some other time but you really are blinkered if you believe it was a 747 that hit the Pentagon."
Yes, keith. Stop being silly. It wasn't a 747! I was a 757!!! No wonder you are failing to grasp the finer points of this when you can't even get the basic facts correct.
In the video I saw, I couldn't tell if it was a plane.
The videos don’t show the plane hitting the pentagon. All they show is an explosion. When will the government show the whole footage. All I want to do is see the plane hitting the pentagon like one saw it hit building 1 and 2 of the wtc. Is that to much to ask???
by seon on Wed May 17, 06 4:26pm
[+]
Here is the BBC addressing conspiracy claims:
The theorists do not believe eyewitnesses, physical evidence, engineering studies or even the claims of Osama Bin Laden, so it is unlikely that they will be convinced by grainy video frames.
Claims:
- AA77 did not crash into the building. And if there was no AA77, it must have been a missile, a military aircraft or a drone that did it
- The alleged pilot Hani Hanjour was not skilled enough to execute the manoeuvre and the plane would have stalled in the tight turn alleged
- Street lights were knocked down but did not bring down the plane; therefore there was no plane. They could have been deliberately lifted from the ground
- The damage was not consistent with the size of the airliner and therefore there was no airliner
- There were no remains of either the 757 or passengers and therefore neither existed
- Pieces of fuselage found nearby were planted
- Eyewitnesses who said they saw the plane were confused. Others said they saw a commuter jet or a helicopter
Answers:
There are, of course, answers to all of the above, to be found in the report of the 9/11 Commission, in other technical assessments and in COMMON SENSE.
For example, the limited damage on each side of the impact zone was due to recent strengthening work on the building. Windows that survived were made of shatterproof glass.
Another obvious weakness in the film is that the eyewitnesses chosen are all treated as if they have equal value. And did nobody see the lampposts being lifted out of the ground?
And the passengers...?
- The most glaring gap in the theory is surely this. If AA77 did not end its flight hitting the Pentagon, what happened to it and its passengers?
- This appears to be of little relevance to 9/11 theorists. In the course of an e-mail exchange with one of them I asked this question and was told that for all she knew, the plane could have been diverted somewhere and the passengers gassed.
- One of the passengers was well-known. She was Barbara Olson, wife of Ted Olson, the US Solicitor general. However, I was told by the theorist that two calls she made to her husband from the plane probably never existed. Exactly where she might be now remains a mystery, it seems.
- It also says that the Twin Towers were brought down by "controlled demolition". Again, great emphasis is placed on immediate eyewitness accounts of "explosions" within the towers, and almost none on later engineering examinations of the sequence of the collapse.
Etc... there you go Brits. Your own unbiased BBC.
“The most glaring gap in the theory is surely this. If AA77 did not end its flight hitting the Pentagon, what happened to it and its passengers?”
Fiddle I think that’s a good question. There’s no evidence to support what really happened to the passengers and they did make calls from phones on the planes.
I’d point out that cell phones can not be used from so high but there were calls made from the planes phone, right?
I’m still sceptical on the pentagon issue but I’ve decided to focus on the facts. Like the ignored warnings, Bush telling fbi agents to “back of” the binladens and the war games. Oh and people being warned not to fly and cancelling trips.
I’ll admit I was wrong when I see a plane hit the pentagon but your right the explosion is way to big to be a missile so now I’m sceptical on that part of the conspiracy theory to.
by seon on Wed May 17, 06 4:58pm
[+]
After watching planes hit the wtc and the explosions I have to admit that the explosion in the pentagon looked like the same explosion that a plane flying into it would have caused.
Its just so frustrating that the US government wont release the whole footage and keep us guessing. They could easily put this conspiracy theory to rest.
I advise everyone else to go to cnn .com/ SPECIALS/ 2001/ trade. Center / day. video. 09. html #11th
With no spaces and examine the videos yourselves.
This doesn’t mean its over, there’s still evidence of prior knowledge and a heck of a lot of unanswered questions.
I think it will decrease the conspiracy theories though.
by seon on Wed May 17, 06 5:14pm
[+]
"There’s no evidence to support what really happened to the passengers and they did make calls from phones on the planes.
I’d point out that cell phones can not be used from so high but there were calls made from the planes phone, right?"
Wrong. You can use cell phones on planes. However, airlines usually restrict their use because they are concerned it may interfere with the airplane's electronic systems.
Evidence of the passengers? Yes, like debris, suitcase pieces, etc. Oh, and their families would like to know what happened to their family members.
"back off Bin Laden"? Actually, this was first done under Bill Clinton. The FBI begin an investigation into two relatives of bin Laden in February 1996, then close it on September 11, 1996. Michael Scheuer, the head of the CIA Counterterrorism Center’s special unit focusing on bin Laden from 1996 to 1999 (see February 1996), later will claim that before 9/11 members of the bin Laden family in the US are nearly completely off limits to US law enforcement. So, lets keep a little perspective on this. It is hardly new. The US wants to keep the Saudi royals in control of the oil.
Warnings: Here is John Ashcroft's sworn testimony to the 9/11 commission:
BEN-VENISTE: ...At some point in the spring or summer of 2001, around the time of this heightened threat alert, you apparently began to use a private chartered jet plane, changing from your use of commercial aircraft on grounds, our staff is informed, of an FBI threat assessment. And, indeed, as you told us, on September 11th itself you were on a chartered jet at the time of the attack.
Can you supply the details, sir, regarding the threat which caused you to change from commercial to private leased jet?
ASHCROFT: ...Let me indicate to you that I never ceased to use commercial aircraft for my personal travel.
ASHCROFT: My wife traveled to Germany and back in August. My wife and I traveled to Washington, D.C., on the 3rd of September before the 17th -- before the 11th attack on commercial aircraft.
I have exclusively traveled on commercial aircraft for my personal travel; continued through the year 2000, through the entirety of the threat period to the nation.
On government business? Yes, More testimony:
The assessment made by the security team and the Department of Justice was made early in the year. It was not related to a terrorism threat as a threat to the nation. It was related to an assessment of the security for the attorney general, given his responsibilities and the job that he undertakes. And it related to the maintenance of arms and other things by individuals who travel with the attorney general. And it was their assessment that we would be best served to use government aircraft.
"Its just so frustrating that the US government wont release the whole footage and keep us guessing. They could easily put this conspiracy theory to rest."
That is the footage. It is really hard to get a clear picture of a airplane flying at 500+ mph that is only a couple of hundred yards away (if that). Try it sometime.
Lets look at the stock trades. Some say they were high and indicated foreknowledge. Approximately 3000 puts were made on UAL on Sept 6. Is this high? Yes, but levels this high or higher have been reached before: Aug. 8 with 1,678 puts, July 20 with 2,995, April 6 with 8,212 and March 13 with 8,072.
It is a difficult thing to explain here because this involves a number of sophisticated financial transactions.
Other "foreknowledge"? Based on anonymous sources. Those supposedly warned not to fly wouldn't have even been on any of the hijacked planes. This claim also conveniently forgets things like where the people were and where they were going.
Employees, etc., others warned? Bogus, no FACTUAL evidence to support this. Just innuendo and false claims.
Its possible they could use mobile phones on flight 77 because it flew so low but I heard cell phones wouldn’t work if the plane were at a certain distance.
And because of our obsession with oil 911 happened when it could have been prevented.
What about the other warnings?
Willie Brown got a call from what he described as his airport security 8 hours before the 911 attacks advising him that Americans should be cautious about their air travel. Yes he wouldn’t have been on any of the hijacked planes and the attack happened while he was on his way to the airport but he was warned before hand. So someone must have known a terrorist attack would happen.
Odigo, a instant messenger company, said it warned employees of an attack 2 hours before predicting the attack.
ISRAELI intelligence officials say that they warned their counterparts in the United States the month before 911 that large-scale terrorist attacks on highly visible targets on the American mainland were imminent.
Congress was warned that Osama bin Laden was planning a large-scale attack against U.S. or Israeli interests two months before Sept. 11, 2001.
Philippine authorities warned The FBI six years before 911 of a terrorist plot to hijack commercial planes and slam them into the Pentagon, the CIA headquarters and other buildings but it is not clear what was done with it.
U.S. warned in 1995 of a terrorist plot to hijack commercial planes and slam them into the Pentagon, the CIA headquarters and other buildings. The information was passed on to the FBI in 1995, but it's not clear what was done with it. Despite the fact that FBI Director Robert Mueller insisted the agency had "no warning signs" of the September 11 attacks. This is one of many warnings the Bush and Clinton Government had.
Even the taleban warned America. An aide to the former Taleban foreign minister, Wakil Ahmad Muttawakil, said he was sent to warn American diplomats and the United Nations that Osama bin Laden was due to launch a huge attack on American soil.
Yet FBI Director Robert Mueller insisted the agency had "no warning signs" of the September 11 attacks.
Also Jeb Bush signed a Florida TWO YEAR emergency order
4 days BEFORE attack on Friday, September 7 called Executive Order No. 01-261. He said “I hereby order members of the Florida National Guard into active service, to support law-enforcement personnel and emergency-management personnel in the event of civil disturbances and to support to law-enforcement personnel. This Executive Order shall remain in full force and effect until the earlier of its revocation or June 30, 2003."
I tried to pause the footage but I still couldn’t see any plane. However as I said the explosion is almost as big as the explosions in the wtc and to big to be a missile.
I have articles mostly from credible sources to support these facts plus other governments offered the us government to hand over binladen but they refused. Because the US government wanted a new pear harbour. Page 63 in Re building Americas defences says “Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalysing event- like a new Pearl Harbour” look at it your self. Don’t take my word for it
newamericancentury. org/ RebuildingAmericasDefenses. Pdf
I didn’t mean to bring up 911 again I just cant keep quiet when someone makes ballots about it.
by seon on Wed May 17, 06 10:09pm
[+]
From what I saw it will increase the nutjob conspiracy theorists.
I must say though that far from being "overwhelming evidence" the videos show nothing more than an unidentifiable blur.
wide the government still have 84 videos that will show more proof the plane hit the pentagon.
by seon on Thu May 18, 06 7:47pm
[+]
seon, I don't believe it was a conspiracy I am just saying that until we see incontovertible proof the conspiracy theorists will keep on and on.
Besides the government have categorically stated that no more videos will be released.
Shame.
wide I’m sceptical on the pentagon conspiracy to, I agree plus I believe if the government has nothing to hide why doesn’t it release all the tapes and finally put this theory to rest once and for all?
by seon on Thu May 18, 06 8:22pm
[+]
^That's assuming the other videos actually show anything. If an actual Pentagon CCTV camera, pointing at the exact location only shows a faint blur, I suspect the others aren't gonna be any better.
It's claimed that Flight 77 was travelling at around 500 mph when it hit the Pentagon. This translates to well over 700 feet per second, which begins to pose a problem for CCTV speeds. Even at 5 fps, for instance, the plane will travel over 120 feet between each frame. You'd still be unlucky to miss it completely, but it does mean you might easily have 2 or 3 frames of a blurred object, at low resolution - and further away than the one that has just been released. Also consider that these other cameras might not have even been facing the crash area.
Even if it was an airliner that magically disappeared into a single hole, wings and all, it only raises more questions, like why it flew unchallenged across America without being intercepted by the American airforces fighter jets!
This even though it was clearly heading for the Pentagon, the great symbolic monument to American national defence and security!
Like was Payne Stewart more important?
And by a pilot who COULD NOT FLY! His own instructor had to take over the controls of the two seater Cessna because he feared for his safety!
Now this guy is steering a Boeing Airliner effortlessly across unprotected American airspace, and all this AFTER the towers had been hit!!!
No wonder you official fairy tale tin foil hatted conspiracy nuts are now the in the minority.
If a Boeing 757 really did hit the Pentagon, and the Bush administration wants everybody to be 100% assured that it did, why don’t they do two simple things:
1) Show us the numerous videotapes that were confiscated within minutes of the attack from the Sheraton National Hotel, Jose Velasquez’ Citgo gas station, and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), along with all footage which was captured by a plethora of cameras situated around the Pentagon.
2) Better yet, after the government rescinded their original story that the 757 was “vaporized” into thin air upon impact, they claimed to have most of the wreckage stored in a warehouse. Why not simply open the doors to this hangar and let everyone see the parts? Think how easy that would be.
But for some strange reason, no one from the U.S. government is stepping forward to squash all these pesky “conspiracy rumors” that Flight 77 never hit the Pentagon. Why? Think about it. The guilty parties responsible for carrying-out the 9-11 terror attacks are loathsome mass murderers of the worst kind. If they were found guilty of committing these crimes, the citizens of this nation would scream for their heads on a silver platter.
With this simple premise in mind, if Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda terrorists were indeed behind the Pentagon attack (and not a cabal of bloodthirsty psychopaths within the U.S. government), don’t you think George Bush and his military brass would do everything in their power to PROVE it? This isn’t rocket science, folks. Wouldn’t they show us each and every confiscated videotape and say, “There, now you can see it with your own eyes – a Boeing 757 flying into the Pentagon.” To lend even more credence to their argument, they’d break-out every other video until there was such a preponderance of evidence that even the most hard-core conspiracy theorist would be convinced.
Or else they’d get Dan Rather, Bill O’Reilly, Wolf Blitzer, Peter Jennings and Tom Brokaw – along with teams of cameramen – and parade them through this mysterious hangar filled with parts from Flight 77. Then we could see the evidence in full-color on ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC and Fox News.
But guess what. Despite how utterly simple this solution is, the government isn’t doing it. Why? Because they know the videos would show that a Boeing 757 DID NOT hit the Pentagon, and there is no warehouse filled with the legitimate wreckage from Flight 77.
It’s that simple; and if you disagree with this premise, ask yourself one question: how many mass-murderers want to be arrested and convicted for their crimes (especially one as notorious as 9-11)? The answer is: none of them would. So, if our government could undeniably prove their case once-and-for-all, they would do it in a heartbeat. But they can’t. Thus, everything else – including the PentaLawn, Hani Hanjour, the 18 foot impact hole and the lack of debris – is icing on the cake further proving their guilt.
In the end, I only have a few simple words to say to the US government: show us the videos, and show us the hangar filled with wreckage. That’s not too much to ask from someone who is innocent, is it?
|
