Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
US releases 9/11 Pentagon video
- Thread starter JayC9
- Start date
T
The Shadow
Guest
interesting
Delinquent
Well-known member
Devil's advocate here.
Have you seen the video? There is ONE frame that shows something that kinda looks like an airplane. The next frame it captures shows the explosion. Now, you can't tell me in this day and age, that it's impossible to superimpose an airplane using motion blur through photoshop onto the film. Ask any computer graphics or digital art student how easy it would be
Have you seen the video? There is ONE frame that shows something that kinda looks like an airplane. The next frame it captures shows the explosion. Now, you can't tell me in this day and age, that it's impossible to superimpose an airplane using motion blur through photoshop onto the film. Ask any computer graphics or digital art student how easy it would be
T
The Shadow
Guest
the explosion was photoshopped as well??
whatever it was was very very close to the ground....Im not sure a missile could have been coming in from that angle
whatever it was was very very close to the ground....Im not sure a missile could have been coming in from that angle
Delinquent
Well-known member
The Shadow said:
Explosion was definitely real but like I said, I'm playing devils advocate here. It would be relatively simple for such an image to be added to the film
bignate73
New member
The Shadow said:
and you think a 757 could???
the thing that i find funny is that most of the accounts I see about the angle the plane flew, was that it would have had to fly straight in to create the perfect circle that it did. it was coming in actually on an angle with no engine/wing impact damage to the building. and the fuselage would have made a more oblong shape.
perfectly shaped exit hole:
Last edited:
hamstershaver
New member
good point about the circle, that is kind of strangebignate73 said:and you think a 757 could???
the thing that i find funny is that most of the accounts I see about the angle the plane flew, was that it would have had to fly straight in (with no wings) to create the perfect circle that it did. it was coming in actually on an angle with no engine/wing impact damage to the building. and the fuselage would have made a more oblong shape.
Testosterone boy
New member
There are unanswered questions:
There was little wreckage left which means that most of the plane burned. Aluminum creates a 4000 degree fire which would have scorched the grass I believe?
There was nothing left of the two main engines. Jet engines are built to have an inferno in them, I doubt they would have burned and disappeared?
The hole is round? The plane is not. The adacent windows were unbroken for the most part?
Why wait 6 years and release another frame? Did that make any difference?
That one piece of brightly painted aluminum that was conspicuously away from the wreckage did nothing to calm my concerns.
There was little wreckage left which means that most of the plane burned. Aluminum creates a 4000 degree fire which would have scorched the grass I believe?
There was nothing left of the two main engines. Jet engines are built to have an inferno in them, I doubt they would have burned and disappeared?
The hole is round? The plane is not. The adacent windows were unbroken for the most part?
Why wait 6 years and release another frame? Did that make any difference?
That one piece of brightly painted aluminum that was conspicuously away from the wreckage did nothing to calm my concerns.
OneSupernova
New member
Strange. The way the plane hit, at such an angle. Looks fishy. How was stability maintained to cause that circular hole? And the high speed? interesting.
redguru
New member
Testosterone boy said:
The second photo is the exit hole. Maybe that is why you are mistaking it for a missile. The plane blasted through six reinforced concrete walls. A missile or a smaller aircraft is not going to do that.
This is the damage to the left of the inpact. Each window is 5 ft wide, as is the space between them. The steel beams are exposed in a wing-like pattern for six windows length and five spaces, or approximately 55ft.
More debris consistent with that of a 757
redguru
New member
I will say this again, you conspiracy theorists denigrate the souls of those who lost thier lives that fateful day. Life is fragile and the lives of many can be taken away by the whim of one or the few. That alone justifies the eradication of those who believe all life is subject to thier casual disregard. This conflict of ideals has to occur for the betterment of mankind as a whole.
As far as the conspiracy:
The US Government can't even get 435 people to agree on a spending bill let alone the numbers of people it would have taken to carry out a hoax of that magnitude.
As far as the conspiracy:
The US Government can't even get 435 people to agree on a spending bill let alone the numbers of people it would have taken to carry out a hoax of that magnitude.
Testosterone boy
New member
jnuts said:
Examining the evidence is not the hallmark of mental midgetry.
So far....the only people I have seen be outraged by closer analysis are.....Republicans.
Government employed Republicans to be more precise.
There seems to be more evidence that makes one wonder than evidence to the contrary.
However...if it was exactly as they say...then nothing will ever be proved and it will be just another huge collection of collossal blunders.
beefcake28
New member
jnuts said:
Restating my stance on the Pentagon "conspiracy theories": http://www.elitefitness.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6020067&postcount=121
Mental Midgets? Maybe you should think before making such a blanket statement... Or, maybe we should compare the credentials of some of these "mental midgets" to your credentials...
Scholars for 9/11 Truth
Among those included in this society are:
Robert M. Bowman: Former director of the US Advanced Space Programs Development in the Carter and Ford administrations, former Air Force Lieutenant Colonel with 101 combat missions.
James H. Fetzer: McKnight Professor of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota, Duluth and co-chair of S9/11T.
David Ray Griffin: Professor of philosophy of religion and theology emeritus at the Claremont School of Theology.
Steven E. Jones: Professor of physics, Brigham Young University, co-chair of S9/11T, and an editor of its forthcoming publication, Journal for 9/11 Studies.
Wayne Madsen: investigative journalist, author, and syndicated columnist.
John McMurtry: FRSC, moral philosopher, ethicist, and author of six books on public policy issues, who works at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada.
Morgan Reynolds: Texas A&M University Professor of Economics Emeritus, and former Chief Economist for the United States Department of Labor, former Director of the Criminal Justice Center.
Andreas von Bülow: former state-secretary in the German Defense Ministry, minister for research and technology, and member of Parliament for 25 years.
The full list of members can be found here: http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html
Testosterone boy
New member
redguru said:
You're "above" all that. More of an investor outlook.
Testosterone boy
New member
beefcake28 said:
lol....Steven Looney. Yea...that name will scare the pants off of the 'enforcers.'
Amazed I didn't see anything that asked me for $$$$$. Don't know what I would have done.
My uncle works there and his offices were hit. He left for Brussels the day before, but most of his neighboring co workers were killed.
I hope someday he tells me about all the shit he knows. Cold war and all. He don't say a damn thing. My grandma went to her grave not knowing what her son does for a living. Only that he works for NSA.
I hope someday he tells me about all the shit he knows. Cold war and all. He don't say a damn thing. My grandma went to her grave not knowing what her son does for a living. Only that he works for NSA.
Testosterone boy
New member
Pretty much a given.jnuts said:
There is a pretty fair way to tell if a poster (any board) is FBI/NSA/ etc. They take many opportunities to insult those who seek the truth. Nothing to do with you btw...I didn't know you gave a damn about 9/11 opinions.
beefcake28
New member
Fair enough.jnuts said:
jnuts said:
While I certainly question some of the events that took place on 9/11, I have made it clear that I do not necessarily support the theory of something other than a plane hit the Pentagon. Their isn't enough evidence on either side to support a concrete decision, in my opinion. That said, my comment was regarding calling all conspiracy theorists (i.e. anyone questioning the 'official story') "mental midgets". To make a statement like that is just obsurd.
jnuts
New member
beefcake28 said:
Dude - there were plane parts embedded inside/outside the Pentagon.
Yes, mental midgets was a bit harsh. I intended it to be that way. There is rarely anything that is 100% in explanation.
We often don't know what the enemy intended.
That being said - it is often the most obvious that happened. Deception, illusion and misdirection are VERY difficult to obtain - especially within our open society.
Testosterone boy
New member
jnuts said:
Some consider there is a dearth of evidence.
One of the most outspoken was a 757 captain for a very long time. Said the entire scenario was absolutely impossible...in many respects.
I hope that someday they prove that the official line is correct because a lot of people feel pretty uneasy otherwise.
Lots of government employees have all of this special knowledge that confirms the official 9/11 story.
Seems that civilians tend to fall on the other side.
The thing that pissed in their cheerios more than anything....they shouldn't have whisked the 9/11 evidence off to China if they had nothing to hide.
That fact makes a lot of people suspicious.
jnuts
New member
Testosterone boy said:
Eventually they will... just might take awhile. Look at how long it took them to declassify the Enigma / Purple operation from WWII. Hefty chunks of operational history were re-examined in a new light once the details of that was brought forward.
<sidenote>
FWIW, Patton was the *best* at using this info - so good that he as able to leave his flank exposed during the thrust through France. He guarded one of his flanks with airpower. He could do it because he was reading their mail.
<sidenote>
Testosterone boy
New member
bluepeter said:That is a rather ironic statement considering the current administration...
No idea what you might be saying?
j/k
P
Phaded
Guest
a plane hit the pentagon again? when..
Testosterone boy
New member
bluepeter said:So those that question their government in this instance and compound their sin by selecting ignoring 'evidence', how would they compare to those that selctively ignore the fact their government selectively ignored intelligence in order to justify an invasion?
Many of 'them' don't think....they attack. It's more 'manly.'
Phenom78
New member
bluepeter said:So those that question their government in this instance and compound their sin by selecting ignoring 'evidence', how would they compare to those that selctively ignore the fact their government selectively ignored intelligence in order to justify an invasion?
They would selectively exclude most of your post to point out that there has been no evidence that anyone selectively ignored intelligence to justify an invasion. That after multiple select committees conducting investigations no bipartisan commission has made that charge. In fact they stated there is no evidence of information tampering. Which is consistent with the fact that every other major countries intelligence service believed the same.
JThompson24
Banned
so a 747 was ten feet off the ground going straight and never got detected or on video anywhere and they have no cameras closer? bullshiit
Testosterone boy
New member
757 I think
I go back and forth but feel more talkative when wondering about the dark side.
I go back and forth but feel more talkative when wondering about the dark side.
Similar threads
