-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Hans am cry. DoD to release 9/11 Pentagon video
- Thread starter PotatoeMasher
- Start date
- Status
happyfunball
Member
well that was worthless, cant see shit
Greenpanda
Banned
Terrorists attacked the Pentagon's weak point for MASSIVE DAMAGE.
LakeEarth said:
I probably wasn't following the Moussaoui anywhere near closely enough, but when I read the original post, I asked myself what purpose it served in terms of that case to hold this footage back.
Haven't seen the footage... I'm satisfied with the official tale of events. And if it did go down some other way, there are enough paranoid freaks who will eventually uncover the appropriate nugget of information (at which point the "paranoid freaks" will become "heroic skeptics")
Squirrel Killer
Member
Not that I agree with anything else you say about 9/11, but I do agree that they should release all the video they have.Jaf said:
Because it's just meant to get pictures of people driving within 3 feet of it for ID purposes, not record planes ramming buildings at 400mph?MIMIC said:
Francias Castiglione
Banned
maynerd said:
"The Pentagon and President anticipated this and we've been told to not answer the question."
Crab Shaker
Doesn't pay his sources
Ok so the cameras by the pentagon apparently suck. Hardcore.
I want to know why such a powerful U.S. government building has crappy cameras pointed in stupid directions not optimal for catching license plates?
(no, I am not one of the conspiracy theorists, but I do f'ing ask questions)
I want to know why such a powerful U.S. government building has crappy cameras pointed in stupid directions not optimal for catching license plates?
(no, I am not one of the conspiracy theorists, but I do f'ing ask questions)
PhoenixDark
Banned
I'm...
Disappointed. Although you can see a plane in the video, the video is far from clear. This is because it was caught on a security camera, which of course has a 3 (or more) second delay on it. So you see a white plane, then you see a small crash in the building, then a bigger explosion, etc.
I firmly believe that there is no evidence whatsoever that a plane - not a missile, nor a small Global Hawk - did not hit the building. The video rules out the Global Hawk in my eyes; an unmanned vehicle would not slide into a target like the plane on the video did: it would just crash into the building kamakaze style. A missile is totally out of the question.
But, I will cede that this video is not the megaton that I was looking for. I see a plane, but I don't see enough DEFINITIVE evidence based on this video alone that would shut up the conspiracy fiends. I can understand why people would be weary of this video's evidence (or lack thereof). But like I said, the white object in the video looks like a plane flying extremely low into the building. It doesn't act like a Global Hawk, and I don't believe for a second that it's a missile.
*grumble*
Disappointed. Although you can see a plane in the video, the video is far from clear. This is because it was caught on a security camera, which of course has a 3 (or more) second delay on it. So you see a white plane, then you see a small crash in the building, then a bigger explosion, etc.
I firmly believe that there is no evidence whatsoever that a plane - not a missile, nor a small Global Hawk - did not hit the building. The video rules out the Global Hawk in my eyes; an unmanned vehicle would not slide into a target like the plane on the video did: it would just crash into the building kamakaze style. A missile is totally out of the question.
But, I will cede that this video is not the megaton that I was looking for. I see a plane, but I don't see enough DEFINITIVE evidence based on this video alone that would shut up the conspiracy fiends. I can understand why people would be weary of this video's evidence (or lack thereof). But like I said, the white object in the video looks like a plane flying extremely low into the building. It doesn't act like a Global Hawk, and I don't believe for a second that it's a missile.
*grumble*
Squirrel Killer
Member
It's not that "the cameras by the Pentagon suck", it's that the cameras that caught the plane ramming into the building were designed to for another purpose. That's why I'd love to see the gas station video released.Crab Shaker said:
Also, I'm pretty sure that a camera optionally positioned to record license plates is not in a orientation to catch a plane ramming into the building. Maybe it would catch that piece of debris falling on the road though.
Asking questions is fine. Acting as if all the security camera at the Pentagon suck on the basis of a couple fixed cameras, however, is a bit overkill. There are reasonable explainations.
http://pserver.mii.instacontent.net/defense/flight77/fl77-1_11094135.WMV
http://pserver.mii.instacontent.net/defense/flight77/fl77-2_11094237.WMV
Both the videos directly from the DoD. http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/index.html
Those are crap videos. 757 eh?
Release the hotel and gas station vids.
edit: It does somewhat look like a small plane when you freeze-frame it. But not a 757.
http://pserver.mii.instacontent.net/defense/flight77/fl77-2_11094237.WMV
Both the videos directly from the DoD. http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/index.html
Those are crap videos. 757 eh?
Release the hotel and gas station vids.
edit: It does somewhat look like a small plane when you freeze-frame it. But not a 757.
As a few others have already mentioned, this is the Pentagon.
The fucking spot where we apparently run our defense operations.
Now if ANYONE, I mean ANYONE thinks that the Pentagon doesn't have better cameras
that recorded the entire incident, you're the nutjob.
We're talking about slideshows that show *something* hit the Pentagon and on the other hand, we have spy satellites that can read the magazine you happen to be reading in the backyard?
Who's fooling who here? :lol
And why did the government feel it needed to seize the gas station video tape?
When the government acts like this, you can't blame people for wondering wtf is up.
The fucking spot where we apparently run our defense operations.
Now if ANYONE, I mean ANYONE thinks that the Pentagon doesn't have better cameras
that recorded the entire incident, you're the nutjob.
We're talking about slideshows that show *something* hit the Pentagon and on the other hand, we have spy satellites that can read the magazine you happen to be reading in the backyard?
Who's fooling who here? :lol
And why did the government feel it needed to seize the gas station video tape?
When the government acts like this, you can't blame people for wondering wtf is up.
This should go in the conspiracy thread, but it's inevitable that it will appear in this thread as well.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html
Where's your evidence they had adequate (to you) camera coverage monitoring the perimeter, that weren't destroyed by the crash? What would the purpose of those cameras be, so far away from the building, but pointing towards it--other than, of course, to dispel the begged questions of conspiracy theorists?
mrroboto said:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html
Where's your evidence they had adequate (to you) camera coverage monitoring the perimeter, that weren't destroyed by the crash? What would the purpose of those cameras be, so far away from the building, but pointing towards it--other than, of course, to dispel the begged questions of conspiracy theorists?
evil solrac v3.0
Member
i thought i'd seen this before..... this shows something but not enough.
DaCocoBrova said:
*sniff sniff*
What's that smell?
Smells like...bullshit: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=3395612&postcount=1064
DaCocoBrova said:
Yeah.. my dad, a retired navy captain, who was working that day in a building across from the pentagon, didn't see and hear a plane flying over his head and then crash into the pentagon. Because of course he can't tell the difference between a missle and a commercial airliner. Tin Foil Brigade FTL
Lakedaimon
Member
my favorite thing about this particular conspiracy theory is how the "proof" is simply that what happened dosent seem to jibe with a bunch of baseless assumptions about airplanes and crashes.
there is a fairly famous video test of a F-4 phantom being crashed into a concrete wall. oddly enough there is no "airplane-esque" wreckage left behind from that either. and the phantom was a far more rugged aircraft, built for combat, unlike a passenger plane.
there is a fairly famous video test of a F-4 phantom being crashed into a concrete wall. oddly enough there is no "airplane-esque" wreckage left behind from that either. and the phantom was a far more rugged aircraft, built for combat, unlike a passenger plane.
SteveMeister
Hang out with Steve.
Jaf said:
Where's Flight 77, then? What happened to the people onboard?
Occam's Razor applies here, folks. Despite the fact that the black boxes from Flight 77 were recovered from the Pentagon, despite the fact that identifiable remains of some of Flight 77's passengers were recovered from the Pentagon, despite the fact that identifiable debris from a 757 were recovered from the Pentagon, the simplest explanation is that Flight 77 was indeed hijacked along with three other airliners on September 11 2001, and that it was deliberately piloted into the Pentagon.
I mean, come ON -- this is the Bush administration. Especially after Katrina, do you REALLY believe the US government could pull off a conspiracy this involved? Give me a break.
As to video tapes from a hotel and a gas station -- maybe they show even less than the Pentagon security cameras and are simply not worth releasing.
- Status