rare 9/11 footage, how was this unseen for so long?

[Las Vegas]

Come up with some facts bud.... You sit back like a 4 year old and say 'wrong'. Hani Hanjour couldn't fly a Cessna, you think he flew a jet that day?  The jet could not maneuver or fly anywhere near that speed that close to the ground, fact confirmed by many pilots.  Apparently you know different.. That hole that penetrated the rings of the Pentagon, way to small for a jet fuselage, and you're utterly retarded to believe a jet fuselage could do so.  Impossible.  You honestly believe only 1 camera captured the event, wow.  WTC 7, watch it and time it.  Please refute the fact it fell at free fall speed.. 6.5 seconds.  Free fall speed... I'll wait for you to explain that, and how the laws of physics were temporarily suspended that day... Carry on..

No.  The exterior break is exactly what would be expected.



The small hole you're thinking of, was in the C-Ring:

[OzmO]

Come up with some facts bud.... You sit back like a 4 year old and say 'wrong'. Hani Hanjour couldn't fly a Cessna, you think he flew a jet that day?  The jet could not maneuver or fly anywhere near that speed that close to the ground, fact confirmed by many pilots.  Apparently you know different.. That hole that penetrated the rings of the Pentagon, way to small for a jet fuselage, and you're utterly retarded to believe a jet fuselage could do so.  Impossible.  You honestly believe only 1 camera captured the event, wow.  WTC 7, watch it and time it.  Please refute the fact it fell at free fall speed.. 6.5 seconds.  Free fall speed... I'll wait for you to explain that, and how the laws of physics were temporarily suspended that day... Carry on..

You said:

Orders were given to stand down..

Can you back that up or not?  Show when, who, where etc.?

That's all i am asking.

If you want me to address the hole in the pentagon or what every else you wrote up there I will be more than happy to.

but what i don't want to do is play the jumping game, where you keep bringing up more stuff.  Let's just stick on 1 thing for a while.

You pick it, i don't care what it is.

Thanks for responding civilly.      

[OzmO]

No.  The exterior break is exactly what would be expected.



The small hole you're thinking of, was in the C-Ring:

One of the biggest charges truthers have is lack of debris.  What's not considered is the various materials used in various parts of the plane, speed, impact, etc.

That's why sometimes is there is very little left in a plane crash.

[Las Vegas]

No not at all.

What i am saying is that you and i trying to examine a video posted on the web with out any expertise in examining videos, without the original video(this includes any video experts who have examine the online version), with out knowledge of the cam used, and it being very low res, is pointless.    

It was recorded with the Pentagon security camera.  It is the famous footage we have all seen.

But I will find something on an official server.  What I posted was uploaded in 2008 by History Commons (with no mention of plane image to this day).

[OzmO]

It was recorded with the Pentagon security camera.  It is the famous footage we have all seen.

But I will find something on an official server.  What I posted was uploaded in 2008 by History Commons (with no mention of plane image to this day).

Even then, we wouldn't know for sure about anything without the actual file. 

[illuminati]

Come up with some facts bud.... You sit back like a 4 year old and say 'wrong'. Hani Hanjour couldn't fly a Cessna, you think he flew a jet that day?  The jet could not maneuver or fly anywhere near that speed that close to the ground, fact confirmed by many pilots.  Apparently you know different.. That hole that penetrated the rings of the Pentagon, way to small for a jet fuselage, and you're utterly retarded to believe a jet fuselage could do so.  Impossible.  You honestly believe only 1 camera captured the event, wow.  WTC 7, watch it and time it.  Please refute the fact it fell at free fall speed.. 6.5 seconds.  Free fall speed... I'll wait for you to explain that, and how the laws of physics were temporarily suspended that day... Carry on..

You make some Good Points.
And hopefully they will be answered or have been answered in the 'Official Story'
No I haven't read it all Or In fact very much of it Before Someone jumps on that.

1, is it really possible for a very inexperienced pilot to fly that low & for there be no marks on the ground.
2, The News Clips Reports of WTC 7 Coming down 20mins before it did.
3, Thermite explosive traces found.
4, Bush saying he saw the 1st plane hit the tower.
5, Speed of fall of the Buildings.
6, WTC 7 Falling in a very similar manner to the twin towers.
7, Really only one Camera at the pentagon caught the object hitting it & that's the best view.

Just asking for some honest definitive answers.

No name calling , no nonsense , just some definitive answers.

[Las Vegas]

Even then, we wouldn't know for sure about anything without the actual file. 

To say that someone might have altered a copy being held on an official server?

[lilhawk1]

So you'd suspect that the copies of this Pentagon security cam video have all been altered to put an image of a plane in them?  You could be right, so it would be better for me to try to find an official source.

No, he's actually naive enough to believe that is the only camera that captured the event that day..

[Las Vegas]

I'll look around for some official release, because it's good advice to be careful what you're looking at.

But I do believe we've found the plane.

[OzmO]

You said:

Can you back that up or not?  Show when, who, where etc.?

That's all i am asking.

If you want me to address the hole in the pentagon or what every else you wrote up there I will be more than happy to.

but what i don't want to do is play the jumping game, where you keep bringing up more stuff.  Let's just stick on 1 thing for a while.

You pick it, i don't care what it is.

Thanks for responding civilly.      

bump

[OzmO]

No, he's actually naive enough to believe that is the only camera that captured the event that day..

So says the guy who read a bunch of books on 9/11 but doesn't know how the defense system worked that day.

Com on man, you want this to slide back down into personal attacks or what?

[OzmO]

To say that someone might have altered a copy being held on an official server?

Again that's not what i am saying.



What i am saying:

 is that you and i trying to examine a video posted on the web with out any expertise in examining videos, without the original video(this includes any video experts who have examine the online version), with out knowledge of the cam used, and it being very low res, is pointless.

[OzmO]

You make some Good Points.
And hopefully they will be answered or have been answered in the 'Official Story'
No I haven't read it all Or In fact very much of it Before Someone jumps on that.

1, is it really possible for a very inexperienced pilot to fly that low & for there be no marks on the ground.
2, The News Clips Reports of WTC 7 Coming down 20mins before it did.
3, Thermite explosive traces found.
4, Bush saying he saw the 1st plane hit the tower.
5, Speed of fall of the Buildings.
6, WTC 7 Falling in a very similar manner to the twin towers.
7, Really only one Camera at the pentagon caught the object hitting it & that's the best view.

Just asking for some honest definitive answers.

No name calling , no nonsense , just some definitive answers.

I start with the easiest one.  The rest of them require far more than simple 1-3 paragraph answers.

#2  The News Clips Reports of WTC 7 Coming down 20mins before it did.

News reports occasionally get things wrong.  Either the report given to them is wrong or the reporter misreads its or just gaffes it.

"If" WTC 7 was demolished what point would there be telling a news station to report it fell when at some point its gonna fall and when that happens everyone is going to report it?

I have always been miffed as to why CT'ers point to this because it doesn't really mean anything.

[Las Vegas]

Again that's not what i am saying.



What i am saying:

 is that you and i trying to examine a video posted on the web with out any expertise in examining videos, without the original video(this includes any video experts who have examine the online version), with out knowledge of the cam used, and it being very low res, is pointless.

But you're not saying the Pentagon security cam videos are valueless to the average viewer, are you?

[OzmO]

But you're not saying the Pentagon security cam videos are valueless to the average viewer, are you?

valueless in what regard?

[Las Vegas]

There are actually two of them, showing a slightly different view from one another (both of these are from earlier in thread, including the one Straw Man posted)

[ Invalid YouTube link ]

[ Invalid YouTube link ]

[Las Vegas]

Yes, so top one is when the tail appears above the box, and with nothing in background to camouflage it.

[Las Vegas]

You guys looking for alternatives to say that no plane hit, have your work cut out for you.

Check for a missile coming off the bottom.  That could be your answer, right there.

[lilhawk1]

I start with the easiest one.  The rest of them require far more than simple 1-3 paragraph answers.

#2  The News Clips Reports of WTC 7 Coming down 20mins before it did.

News reports occasionally get things wrong.  Either the report given to them is wrong or the reporter misreads its or just gaffes it.

"If" WTC 7 was demolished what point would there be telling a news station to report it fell when at some point its gonna fall and when that happens everyone is going to report it?

I have always been miffed as to why CT'ers point to this because it doesn't really mean anything.

Of course it doesn't mean anything.  Let's start with just one piece of evidence that proves the entire thing was an inside job... WTC 7 fell into its own footprint in 6.5 seconds.....FREE FALL SPEED... Explain that... Explain how the laws of physics were temporarily suspended that day..this one piece of evidence proves the entire bullshit story of the 9/11 commission is a farce.  There was no resistance from the floors below, which means, controlled demo..look up photos of other building collapses due to structural failure... There is never a total and complete collapse.. It's always asymmetrical and a partial collapse.  This is not even debatable...It never happens.  Compare how that building fell, and how buildings fall in controlled demo.... Exact same.

[lilhawk1]

You guys looking for alternatives to say that no plane hit, have your work cut out for you.

Check for a missile coming off the bottom.  That could be your answer, right there.

Yeah, okay.. First honestly answer how that jet can fly that low to the ground at that speed.  It cannot, it's impossible.  Pilots of that jet confirm it... Now, if it hit the Pentagon that low, the engines would have hit the ground causing the plane to crash before it hit the building.  Correct?  The supposed pilot could not even fly a Cessna, confirmed by flight instructor, but he could make an impossible maneuver in that jet and fly it that low, and hit the Pentagon?  Right... I think the people that believe a plane hit the Pentagon are the ones that have their work cut out for them. 

[lilhawk1]

One of the biggest charges truthers have is lack of debris.  What's not considered is the various materials used in various parts of the plane, speed, impact, etc.

That's why sometimes is there is very little left in a plane crash.

Wrong. Look at any plane crash, even nose dives.  There is always debris.  Where are the massive engines?  You can't have it both ways... You claim the jet was so strong to penetrate the rings of the Pentagon, but yet there is no wreckage?  Which one is it, can't be both... So strong to penetrate, but then just vaporized? 

[OzmO]

Of course it doesn't mean anything.  Let's start with just one piece of evidence that proves the entire thing was an inside job... WTC 7 fell into its own footprint in 6.5 seconds.....FREE FALL SPEED... Explain that... Explain how the laws of physics were temporarily suspended that day..this one piece of evidence proves the entire bullshit story of the 9/11 commission is a farce.  There was no resistance from the floors below, which means, controlled demo..look up photos of other building collapses due to structural failure... There is never a total and complete collapse.. It's always asymmetrical and a partial collapse.  This is not even debatable...It never happens.  Compare how that building fell, and how buildings fall in controlled demo.... Exact same.

WTC 7 it is then!

So let's stay here on this subject ok?

It's late Friday afternoon where I am at, so I might spend a bit of time on this tomorrow,but will spend time  for sure Monday.  (Didnt want you to think I was being silent)

[illuminati]

I start with the easiest one.  The rest of them require far more than simple 1-3 paragraph answers.

#2  The News Clips Reports of WTC 7 Coming down 20mins before it did.

News reports occasionally get things wrong.  Either the report given to them is wrong or the reporter misreads its or just gaffes it.

"If" WTC 7 was demolished what point would there be telling a news station to report it fell when at some point its gonna fall and when that happens everyone is going to report it?

I have always been miffed as to why CT'ers point to this because it doesn't really mean anything.

If it is the easiest to answer then why havnt you.
Saying Some times news readers get it wrong is not a clear answer to the fact that 2 very large worldwide news broadcasting stations both reported a building had fallen when in view of behind one of the reporters the building was clearly visible.
And the fact they reported it 20 minutes before it actually fell.

Passed the wrong information - clearly not -- Passed it 20 mins to early Yes.
Do news readers get things / read things wrong of course they do -- Only they weren't wrong - Again only 20mins to early.

It means quite a lot had they reported another building had come down & it didn't it wouldn't mean a lot.
The fact they report on a building coming being down when it is still standing IS Slightly More Baffling.

Enough with CT'ers Name -- I'll Make it Clear For You.
I Have any kind of Agenda as to Who Was Behind The Happenings of That Day or Why.
And I Have No Feelings Either Way, Other than a lot of innocent people lost their lives
In some very horrific circumstances.
As I Asked -- I would Like Somethings Explained in a logical Rational Answer.


Thanks for trying to come up with an answer.
If this is so difficult to answer specifically -- What are the other answers going to be like.

[Las Vegas]

Yeah, okay.. First honestly answer how that jet can fly that low to the ground at that speed.  It cannot, it's impossible.  Pilots of that jet confirm it... Now, if it hit the Pentagon that low, the engines would have hit the ground causing the plane to crash before it hit the building.  Correct?  The supposed pilot could not even fly a Cessna, confirmed by flight instructor, but he could make an impossible maneuver in that jet and fly it that low, and hit the Pentagon?  Right... I think the people that believe a plane hit the Pentagon are the ones that have their work cut out for them. 

I agree.  It absolutely freaks me out to see how low it was.  

I say, though, when you look at the break and look at the people for scale, you'll see that the engine bottoms may have been nearly 10 feet up.

[OzmO]

If it is the easiest to answer then why havnt you.
Saying Some times news readers get it wrong is not a clear answer to the fact that 2 very large worldwide news broadcasting stations both reported a building had fallen when in view of behind one of the reporters the building was clearly visible.
And the fact they reported it 20 minutes before it actually fell.

Passed the wrong information - clearly not -- Passed it 20 mins to early Yes.
Do news readers get things / read things wrong of course they do -- Only they weren't wrong - Again only 20mins to early.

It means quite a lot had they reported another building had come down & it didn't it wouldn't mean a lot.
The fact they report on a building coming being down when it is still standing IS Slightly More Baffling.

Enough with CT'ers Name -- I'll Make it Clear For You.
I Have any kind of Agenda as to Who Was Behind The Happenings of That Day or Why.
And I Have No Feelings Either Way, Other than a lot of innocent people lost their lives
In some very horrific circumstances.
As I Asked -- I would Like Somethings Explained in a logical Rational Answer.


Thanks for trying to come up with an answer.
If this is so difficult to answer specifically -- What are the other answers going to be like.

Dude I can't answer for the  news station.  I can tell you that news stories occasionally get miss reported especially during a chaotic event.  What I can also tell you is that this particular charge or question you have is irrelevant to a CT in that there is no point to it.