That explains why they don't think it was flight 77. But they don't give any other explanations. There are also some issues with other claims made in the video, but those aren't important.
The fact that they even mention the witnesses that saw the plane, and then proceed to discount them is one. There is also the issue of the assumption that every single piece of wreckage was placed there, and therefore is unusable as evidence. And finally there is the issue with the security cameras, as they seem to ignore two main issues; the fact that any of the CCTV cameras would basically only see a frame-long blur at best, and the fact that most of them weren't trained on the sky, as that is not really that useful, and a waste of the camera for the most part.
I don't see why not, but to say that just because they haven't means that they are covering it up is still kinda a jump. Don't forget that not all of the 85 cameras (that were claimed to be relevant) would even have anything worth releasing anyways.
No, this is the point. It is not the observer who is responsible for offering facts on the fiction that happened that fateful morning. The fact that thr official conspiracy theory lie is proven incorrect, we need a full, impartial, independent investigation around the Sept 11 events.
Can't be fuel because it didn't caught fire (lawn completely intact)
Can't be engine damage smoke because it only produces a thin and dark smoke
Can't be contrails because the humidity of that day wasn't sufficient to produce them
Can't be engine exaust condensation because the temperature of that day wasn't sufficient to produce them
This is how people should raise the questions about that flight; not by saying that the evidence was planted, but by showing that the evidence present there does not belong to a flight77 attack.
Actually there is only one picture showing debris at the Pentagon that resembles a piece of aircraft. And the focal length is set at such a distance that you can't determine if it's 300 feet or 300 yards. ("As a professional photographer documenting the events of the day, I'll snap a single picture of debris, taking the time to use an artsy-fartsy setting on my camera!")
All the other photos show Pentagon with no plane parts, or plane parts with no Pentagon. There are no pictures or videos of a 757-200.
According to Boeing's website:
Basic Dimensions:
Wing span 124 ft 10 in (38.05 m)
Overall Length 155 ft 3 in (47.32 m) (that's over half a football field)
Tail Height 44 ft 6 in (13.6 m)
Interior Cabin Width 11 ft 7 in (3.5 m)
Body Exterior Width 12 ft 4 in (3.7 m)
The two engines are 12' across, and made of titanium. They are situated 21' from the center of the plane---so they are separated by 42'.
I'm looking for more than just a scrap of aluminum. I'm looking for wings, engines that are twice the size of me or you, a massive landing gear, a tail section, seats (there should be around 200 of them somewhere), miles of wiring, luggage, bodies...I don't see any of that.
Not to mention everytime someone mentions the videos, they never account for both the fact that they will all see at best a frame-long blur of the plane, but also that many of the pentagon cameras are not looking into the distance, as that is not particularly useful for security.
That depends on two of the exact same video cameras hooked up to different recorders will catch the moment one possibly clearer and one could be blurrier. Considering there are alot of confiscated recordings it would really depend on the recorders capabilities and the moment.
Even despite the crispness of the image (which wouldn't even be significantly different), the fact of the matter is that none of them will actually show the plan for anything longer than a fraction of a second.
Here is someone's take on the "missing wings debate", and their explanation, is that the most likely scenario is that the wings would have been destroyed by the impact, and shredded.
Although that was quite an interesting read, nowhere does it say that the wings are stronger than the rest of the airplane, just that they have gotten stronger over time (which I never denied).
THe wing root is strong, that doesn't mean the wings themselves are the strongest part. Not to mention I never claimed that the fuselage was that strong, but rather that you seem to be over exaggerating the strength of the wings. Also, none of the other explanations seem to give a decent answer as to what happened (especially the missile ones), so at this point, the best answer is the official one (and the official story isn't always right, but also isn't always wrong. That's an important side note).
That explains why they don't think it was flight 77. But they don't give any other explanations. There are also some issues with other claims made in the video, but those aren't important.
Not to mention everytime someone mentions the videos, they never account for both the fact that they will all see at best a frame-long blur of the plane, but also that many of the pentagon cameras are not looking into the distance, as that is not particularly useful for security.
Although that was quite an interesting read, nowhere does it say that the wings are stronger than the rest of the airplane, just that they have gotten stronger over time (which I never denied).
25 comments
0 [deleted] 2014-03-07
[deleted]
-2 [deleted] 2014-03-07
[deleted]
-3 Person_McName 2014-03-07
So then what exactly hit it?
1 [deleted] 2014-03-07
[deleted]
-1 Person_McName 2014-03-07
That's not really an answer. What hit it, if not a plane?
3 [deleted] 2014-03-07
[deleted]
-1 Person_McName 2014-03-07
That explains why they don't think it was flight 77. But they don't give any other explanations. There are also some issues with other claims made in the video, but those aren't important.
3 [deleted] 2014-03-07
[deleted]
-1 Person_McName 2014-03-07
The fact that they even mention the witnesses that saw the plane, and then proceed to discount them is one. There is also the issue of the assumption that every single piece of wreckage was placed there, and therefore is unusable as evidence. And finally there is the issue with the security cameras, as they seem to ignore two main issues; the fact that any of the CCTV cameras would basically only see a frame-long blur at best, and the fact that most of them weren't trained on the sky, as that is not really that useful, and a waste of the camera for the most part.
6 [deleted] 2014-03-07
[deleted]
-2 Person_McName 2014-03-07
I don't see why not, but to say that just because they haven't means that they are covering it up is still kinda a jump. Don't forget that not all of the 85 cameras (that were claimed to be relevant) would even have anything worth releasing anyways.
1 joseph177 2014-03-07
A smaller plane perhaps.
1 iamagod_ 2014-03-07
No, this is the point. It is not the observer who is responsible for offering facts on the fiction that happened that fateful morning. The fact that thr official conspiracy theory lie is proven incorrect, we need a full, impartial, independent investigation around the Sept 11 events.
0 Person_McName 2014-03-07
Wait, so you're claiming that observations recorded are irrelevant?
0 [deleted] 2014-03-07
I have to consider that an airplane hit it because the debris are there. Stating that it was planted is not the right way to prove anything.
The way it should be is with the problems recorded in the 2 videos:
Somehow (besides being capable of evading 80 pentagon cameras) the airplane is capable of existing in 2 places at the same time
And produced a white smoke trail that flight 77 could not produce, i.e.
This is how people should raise the questions about that flight; not by saying that the evidence was planted, but by showing that the evidence present there does not belong to a flight77 attack.
3 grandmacaesar 2014-03-07
Actually there is only one picture showing debris at the Pentagon that resembles a piece of aircraft. And the focal length is set at such a distance that you can't determine if it's 300 feet or 300 yards. ("As a professional photographer documenting the events of the day, I'll snap a single picture of debris, taking the time to use an artsy-fartsy setting on my camera!")
All the other photos show Pentagon with no plane parts, or plane parts with no Pentagon. There are no pictures or videos of a 757-200.
According to Boeing's website:
Basic Dimensions:
Wing span 124 ft 10 in (38.05 m)
Overall Length 155 ft 3 in (47.32 m) (that's over half a football field)
Tail Height 44 ft 6 in (13.6 m)
Interior Cabin Width 11 ft 7 in (3.5 m)
Body Exterior Width 12 ft 4 in (3.7 m)
The two engines are 12' across, and made of titanium. They are situated 21' from the center of the plane---so they are separated by 42'.
I'm looking for more than just a scrap of aluminum. I'm looking for wings, engines that are twice the size of me or you, a massive landing gear, a tail section, seats (there should be around 200 of them somewhere), miles of wiring, luggage, bodies...I don't see any of that.
4 platinum_peter 2014-03-07
Thank you for posting this information.
2 iamagod_ 2014-03-07
Thr only photograph of something that resembles plane. Thank you for posting this key piece of information.
Now, they need to tell us what was under thr blue tarp those men could carry above them. A few hundred points tops. What was it hiding?
-1 CAN_ZIGZAG 2014-03-07
CHECK THIS VIDEO FOOTAGE OUT!!
2 [deleted] 2014-03-07
[deleted]
-5 Person_McName 2014-03-07
What else is there to release? Security camera footage is about all there is to release, and none of them are going to look particularly different.
2 [deleted] 2014-03-07
[deleted]
-4 Person_McName 2014-03-07
Can you link to a source on that?
1 [deleted] 2014-03-07
[deleted]
2 [deleted] 2014-03-07
[deleted]
-1 Person_McName 2014-03-07
Not to mention everytime someone mentions the videos, they never account for both the fact that they will all see at best a frame-long blur of the plane, but also that many of the pentagon cameras are not looking into the distance, as that is not particularly useful for security.
1 [deleted] 2014-03-07
That depends on two of the exact same video cameras hooked up to different recorders will catch the moment one possibly clearer and one could be blurrier. Considering there are alot of confiscated recordings it would really depend on the recorders capabilities and the moment.
0 Person_McName 2014-03-07
Even despite the crispness of the image (which wouldn't even be significantly different), the fact of the matter is that none of them will actually show the plan for anything longer than a fraction of a second.
2 [deleted] 2014-03-07
[deleted]
-3 Person_McName 2014-03-07
Because having the wings sheared off/destroyed on impact isn't a possibility?
2 [deleted] 2014-03-07
[deleted]
-1 Person_McName 2014-03-07
Here is someone's take on the "missing wings debate", and their explanation, is that the most likely scenario is that the wings would have been destroyed by the impact, and shredded.
1 [deleted] 2014-03-07
[deleted]
0 Person_McName 2014-03-07
Not really. What makes you think the wings are somehow significantly stronger?
4 [deleted] 2014-03-07
[deleted]
0 Person_McName 2014-03-07
Although that was quite an interesting read, nowhere does it say that the wings are stronger than the rest of the airplane, just that they have gotten stronger over time (which I never denied).
1 [deleted] 2014-03-07
[deleted]
1 Person_McName 2014-03-07
THe wing root is strong, that doesn't mean the wings themselves are the strongest part. Not to mention I never claimed that the fuselage was that strong, but rather that you seem to be over exaggerating the strength of the wings. Also, none of the other explanations seem to give a decent answer as to what happened (especially the missile ones), so at this point, the best answer is the official one (and the official story isn't always right, but also isn't always wrong. That's an important side note).
1 [deleted] 2014-03-07
[deleted]
1 Person_McName 2014-03-07
The reasoning being that the fuselage has more mass behind it, and therefore more force.
2 [deleted] 2014-03-07
[deleted]
0 SkeletorSlim 2014-03-07
I think by asking "what makes you think" he is asking for sources, not just laymen.
-1 Person_McName 2014-03-07
That explains why they don't think it was flight 77. But they don't give any other explanations. There are also some issues with other claims made in the video, but those aren't important.
-1 Person_McName 2014-03-07
Not to mention everytime someone mentions the videos, they never account for both the fact that they will all see at best a frame-long blur of the plane, but also that many of the pentagon cameras are not looking into the distance, as that is not particularly useful for security.
0 Person_McName 2014-03-07
Although that was quite an interesting read, nowhere does it say that the wings are stronger than the rest of the airplane, just that they have gotten stronger over time (which I never denied).