Double Tree Video Released?

[~enigma~]

You're barking up the wrong tree ;)

Damn...that was only a 16 foot hole and you put a plane in it :)

[Bell]

Yup. And of course those 4 aircraft were in pairs, so essentially they had two aircraft, to intercept a suspected 11 hijackings (that's only in the first 90 minutes!).

-Gumboot

And even then... what IF the fighter intercepted the hijacked planes? There was nothing they could do, except tail them to their crash sites.

[StoneWT]

I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT 9/11 WAS THE RESULT OF INCOMPETENCE.


You need to start making positive statements. Will you tell us what you believe 9/11 WAS a result of? If you are sincere, you will.


Would it have been a better idea if I joined the Loose Change forum and DID NOT try to look at things from both sides. Damned if you do, damned if you don't I suppose.


In your own mind perhaps. You came here to pretend to be a neutral truth seeker. However, you play coy games by arguing through questions without committing to a side. You want the benefit of forcing the burden of proof for EVERYTHING on Gravy and others without staking a clear position of your own.

How do you accidentally change the subject and cry about imaginary matters? No one in here is attacking you for allegedly seeking both sides. This is a figment of your imagination. You HAVE been criticized for your lack of proper reasoning and blind refusal to comprehend sourced material offered in response to your questions.

You are perfectly welcome to stay in the forum. We only ask that you conduct yourself in a proper manner.

[60hzxtl]

And even then... what IF the fighter intercepted the hijacked planes? There was nothing they could do, except tail them to their crash sites.

If there had been 4 shoot downs that day, (and no incident other than the 'official story' of 4 hijackings) you can imagine what the CT'ers would have to say about that!

[~enigma~]

If there had been 4 shoot downs that day, (and no incident other than the 'official story' of 4 hijackings) you can imagine what the CT'ers would have to say about that!
There were 67 intercepts prior to 9/11 with no shoot downs. On 9/11 those fascist bastards at NORAD shot down 4 civilian airliners...is that a good guess as to what they would say?

[Hierosis]

You need to start making positive statements. Will you tell us what you believe 9/11 WAS a result of? If you are sincere, you will.



In your own mind perhaps. You came here to pretend to be a neutral truth seeker. However, you play coy games by arguing through questions without committing to a side. You want the benefit of forcing the burden of proof for EVERYTHING on Gravy and others without staking a clear position of your own.

How do you accidentally change the subject and cry about imaginary matters? No one in here is attacking you for allegedly seeking both sides. This is a figment of your imagination. You HAVE been criticized for your lack of proper reasoning and blind refusal to comprehend sourced material offered in response to your questions.

You are perfectly welcome to stay in the forum. We only ask that you conduct yourself in a proper manner.

Stone, I don't think there's ANYTHING I could say that you wouldn't find fault with at this point. Positive statements? Excuse me, but you're the one whose been attacking me and being, well, overly negative.

So, whatever rules you are referring to are clearly not ones you abide by yourself.

[TheGrunion]

Stone, I don't think there's ANYTHING I could say that you wouldn't find fault with at this point. Positive statements? Excuse me, but you're the one whose been attacking me and being, well, overly negative.

So, whatever rules you are referring to are clearly not ones you abide by yourself.

I think what Stone means, is that any time you are asked what you believe happened on 9/11, you do one of three things.


Ignore the question
Dodge the question
Reply with a narrow statement about what you do not believeSo to repeat Stone:

Will you tell us what you believe 9/11 WAS a result of? If you are sincere, you will.

[Abbyas]

Gentlemen, Gentlemen!

I invited Hierosis to come on this board and speak about a specific topic. He does not have to give us his entire political views/a timeline of events on 9/11 to make a point that he feels is valid.

Considering the response he's getting (not that at times he isn't dishing a bit of it out himself), I would completely understand his not desiring to elaborate on every single opinion he has on the matter.

Just as I don't appreciate it that when I make a point, a CTer demands that I show him every single piece of evidence I have that Atta was involved, or EXACTLY how I think the WTC7 fell.

I, however, am thoroughly enjoying some of the more respectful debate and edification (jiminy, gumboot, thank you).

I still love everyone here. And so does my mother.

[Brainster]

Brainster,

Please link me to the post where I specifically accussed NORAD and the ATRC Centers of incompetence. I think you're the one who is missing something here. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT 9/11 WAS THE RESULT OF INCOMPETENCE.

The people who work at NORAD, related agencies and most lower level government officials are good people who do what they do because they are honest. So don't put words in my mouth.

Sigh. I did not say you thought they were incompetent. I said you appear to think that we think they're incompetent. Or perhaps it is other people who you think that we think are incompetent. To remind you, you said about Gravy:

You're the one who feels that the incompetence theory is all there is to it.

But of course nobody here has been saying that incompetence is all there was to 9-11. I personally see it as an enemy exploiting a weakness that we did not know was there because we could not conceive of such a savage and barbaric attack.

[gumboot]

I still love everyone here. And so does my mother.


It's true. :)

-Gumboot

[Crungy]

I personally see it as an enemy exploiting a weakness that we did not know was there because we could not conceive of such a savage and barbaric attack.

That was my initial thought and after countless hours spent poring over both official and alternative theories, the song remains the same.

[gumboot]

But of course nobody here has been saying that incompetence is all there was to 9-11. I personally see it as an enemy exploiting a weakness that we did not know was there because we could not conceive of such a savage and barbaric attack.


I feel much the same. Except I don't consider the 9/11 attacks as particularly savage or barbaric. Indeed, they pale in comparison to SOME things humans are capable of. The only staggering aspect of the attacks is the scale of death, and personally I'm not at all surprised that they were willing to kill so many "infidels".

I think we just never thought anyone would be so bold. When you look at it in hindsight it's such an obvious tactic for a terrorist attack that frankly I'm a little amazed 9/11 didn't happen 20 or 30 years ago.

But yeah, hindsight is a wonderful thing, isn't it?

-Gumboot

[Brainster]

I feel much the same. Except I don't consider the 9/11 attacks as particularly savage or barbaric. Indeed, they pale in comparison to SOME things humans are capable of. The only staggering aspect of the attacks is the scale of death, and personally I'm not at all surprised that they were willing to kill so many "infidels".

I think we just never thought anyone would be so bold. When you look at it in hindsight it's such an obvious tactic for a terrorist attack that frankly I'm a little amazed 9/11 didn't happen 20 or 30 years ago.

Probably because the appetite for suicide missions was not so high among terrorist groups of the past. Remember, it was considered CW that suicide bombers would not come to America because the folks who do those sort of things (in Israel mostly) are typically carefully shepherded to their targets lest they lose their will.

Maybe barbaric is not the word I'm looking for; it's kind of a depraved indifference to life.

[Dazed]

We believe that the men and women of NORAD and the ATC centers were doing the best they could while operating under what we now understand to have been tragically mistaken assumptions. Were mistakes made? Yep. Were they honest mistakes? Yep.

Just something I'd like to hear some opinions on.


"WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Sen. Mark Dayton, D-Minn., charged Friday that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) have covered up "catastrophic failures" that left the nation vulnerable during the Sept. 11 hijackings.

"For almost three years now, NORAD officials and FAA officials have been able to hide their critical failures that left this country defenseless during two of the worst hours in our history," Dayton declared during a Senate Governmental Affairs Committee hearing."

"Dayton said NORAD officials "lied to the American people, they lied to Congress and they lied to your 9/11 commission to create a false impression of competence, communication and protection of the American people."

Here's the original source of the article:
http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/4904237.html

Its been removed and deleted from google's cache as well.

When honest people make an honest mistake do they lie about it and cover it up?

Or is Senator Dayton the liar?

[gumboot]

Just something I'd like to hear some opinions on.

Or is Senator Dayton the liar?


Yers, he is, actually. This sounds like political band-standing.

If you knew ANYTHING you'd know that the NORAD deception to the commission lasted about five seconds. As soon as the commission got hold of the NORAD tapes they knew they had been told incorrect information.

Secondly, if you'd looked into it you'd know you have it all backwards.

NORAD's version of events presented chaos and incompetence. The real version of events actually paints NORAD in a BETTER light.

Indeed, NORAD did a BETTER job of responding to 9/11 than is reflected in their testimonies to the commission.

-Gumboot

[Dazed]

Indeed, NORAD did a BETTER job of responding to 9/11 than is reflected in their testimonies to the commission.


You have a couple examples that would qualify this statement, I hope?

[~enigma~]

You have a couple examples that would qualify this statement, I hope?ou read the PDF he posted earlier? Read it and it will answer your question.

:bananapartyhat:

[Dazed]

Here are some specifics that senator Dayton seems to think qualify his comments.

"Dayton told leaders of the Sept. 11 commission, that, based on the commission's report, a NORAD chronology made public a week after the attacks was grossly misleading. The chronology said the FAA notified the military's emergency air command of three of the hijackings while those jetliners were still airborne. Dayton cited commission findings that the FAA failed to inform NORAD about three of the planes until after they had crashed."

"And, he said, a squadron of NORAD fighter planes that was scrambled was sent east over the Atlantic Ocean and was 150 miles from Washington, D.C., when the third plane struck the Pentagon - "farther than they were before they took off.""


On the face of things, I'd tend to agree with him.
I understand what you're saying though. They said they knew about the 3 planes while they were still flying, but then it turns out they didn't know about the planes until they crashed. This sort of "paints norad in a better light" as you say, because they found out too late to do anything, but it reflects poorly on the FAA. To be fair the FAA is mentioned in the article.


"Sen. Mark Dayton, D-Minn., charged Friday that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD)..."

Does it really matter which agency it is that benefits from the lie?

[boloboffin]

My bad, Gumboot.

Nice work.

PS: I just went and posted your summary at Democratic Underground's 9/11 forum (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x126512). It's pretty weeded over there, though, so there should be some excellent responses.

[gumboot]

"Dayton told leaders of the Sept. 11 commission, that, based on the commission's report, a NORAD chronology made public a week after the attacks was grossly misleading. The chronology said the FAA notified the military's emergency air command of three of the hijackings while those jetliners were still airborne. Dayton cited commission findings that the FAA failed to inform NORAD about three of the planes until after they had crashed."


NORAD weren't notified by the FAA. They were notified by the ATC Centres directly.

NEADS were notified about AA11 9 minutes before it crashed, UA175 crashed during the phone call from Boston Centre telling them about it, they were notified about AA77 2 minutes before it crashed, and they found out about UA93 4 minutes after it crashed.

So the Senator is incorrect.




"And, he said, a squadron of NORAD fighter planes that was scrambled was sent east over the Atlantic Ocean and was 150 miles from Washington, D.C., when the third plane struck the Pentagon - "farther than they were before they took off.""

A squadron? Two aircraft. Yes, they were scrambled to Whiskey 386 (military Airspace) on a 60 by 90 (60 miles on heading of 90 degrees) standard departure flight path. The Navy ATC handling the aircraft was confused over their destination so reverted to default proceedure.




On the face of things, I'd tend to agree with him.
I understand what you're saying though. They said they knew about the 3 planes while they were still flying, but then it turns out they didn't know about the planes until they crashed. This sort of "paints norad in a better light" as you say, because they found out too late to do anything, but it reflects poorly on the FAA. To be fair the FAA is mentioned in the article.


NORAD's original version was totally lacking in logic - it had them scrambling aircraft to intercept flights that hadn't been hijacked yet. IMHO the most likely explanation is the NORAD staff hadn't reviewed 9/11 before giving their presentation and really weren't sure what happened that day.

Some find this impossible to believe, given the amount of time they had, but they ignore what NORAD was doing during that time. Operation Noble Eagle has stretched NORAD to the absolute limit of its capabilities, and it doesn't surprise me at all that while struggling to cover the US with this operation, they lacked the man hours to properly investigate what NEADS did on 9/11.

Essentially NORAD's original version lumps the blame for failed intercepts squarly with them. The true version makes it clear that intercept was impossible, and that NORAD did an exemplary job getting aircraft airbourne and ready as fast as they did, all things considered.

-Gumboot

[Dazed]

Sounds like much ado about nothing then.

[T.A.M.]

If there was incompetence, which I think there was, it was higher up than the average NORAD or FAA worker. It was higher up than ATC. The incompetence I believe existed, comes from the same place as the arrogance, that also contributed to 9/11...namely from the executive branch of the USG. I think there were lots of warnings about 9/11. Not specific, not detailed, but enough that I think more could have been done. Perhaps a general warning to all airport security to be extra vigillent, I do not know I am not an expert.

I think the USG executive were over confident, arrogant, and perhaps some thought the threats were not to be taken seriously.

However, The question then always comes to my mind...ok, so now if you believe they were incompetent, explain what they should have done instead. The trouble is, I am not sure, besides warning security, what more they could have done.

One CTer over at CS blog once suggested that they should have grounded all flights in the USA prior to 9/11. My argument to him was "for how long" if the warnings suggested an "impending attack" but did not offer a date, then how long do you halt all flights. Stop them for more than a couple of days and you would bankrupt the airlines. That in turn would effect the economy drastically...so that didnt seem practical.

I guess, what I am trying to say, is that the USG executive, in some areas to me exhibited incompetence, but I have no answer for what they should have done instead.

TAM

[gumboot]

I think there were lots of warnings about 9/11. Not specific, not detailed, but enough that I think more could have been done. Perhaps a general warning to all airport security to be extra vigillent, I do not know I am not an expert.


This is the problem. It's very easy to say "they could have done something". But as soon as you look into what they actually could have done, you realise really there's nothing they could have done.

Consider how negatively people have responded to security measures put in place post 9/11. Consider how people react to security alerts these days.

This is all with the hindsight of 9/11.

Now travel back to pre 9/11 and imagine the US Government issuing similar security alerts. Imagine them establishing similar security measures.

The American people wouldn't have a bar of it.

I don't believe there was ANYTHING the US Government could have done to prevent 9/11. Why not? Because the American people wouldn't have ALLOWED it.

-Gumboot

[beachnut]

Just something I'd like to hear some opinions on.


"WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Sen. Mark Dayton, D-Minn., charged Friday that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) have covered up "catastrophic failures" that left the nation vulnerable during the Sept. 11 hijackings.

"For almost three years now, NORAD officials and FAA officials have been able to hide their critical failures that left this country defenseless during two of the worst hours in our history," Dayton declared during a Senate Governmental Affairs Committee hearing."

"Dayton said NORAD officials "lied to the American people, they lied to Congress and they lied to your 9/11 commission to create a false impression of competence, communication and protection of the American people."

Here's the original source of the article:
http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/4904237.html

Its been removed and deleted from google's cache as well.

When honest people make an honest mistake do they lie about it and cover it up?

Or is Senator Dayton the liar?

Politics, it has been going on for a long time.

[Kryptos]

Did anyone see this article (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/03/magazine/03intelligence.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) in the New York Times? The government is VERY SLOW in adopting new technology. Al Qaeda (nimble) was able to make full use of the internet and other technology to coordinate their activities, while the intelligence agencies were saddled with dinosaur technology that might have been considered cutting edge in the early 1990s. Sorry to spoil the troofers belief in all this advanced secret technology and magical capabilties portrayed by Hollywood and television shows like CSI.

Though, even with all the best modern technology, it's still an immense challenge to find the needles in the haystack, connect those dots, and have something specific (a time and place) and actionable for the government to prevent 9/11. The worker bees at all the various agencies tried their best with their dinosaur technology. I'm sure they agonize over missed clues and what they could have done differently to connect the dots.

[Pardalis]

Maybe barbaric is not the word I'm looking for; it's kind of a depraved indifference to life.

Sick is the word you're looking for.

[rwguinn]

Gentlemen, Gentlemen!

I invited Hierosis to come on this board and speak about a specific topic. He does not have to give us his entire political views/a timeline of events on 9/11 to make a point that he feels is valid.

Considering the response he's getting (not that at times he isn't dishing a bit of it out himself), I would completely understand his not desiring to elaborate on every single opinion he has on the matter.

Just as I don't appreciate it that when I make a point, a CTer demands that I show him every single piece of evidence I have that Atta was involved, or EXACTLY how I think the WTC7 fell.

I, however, am thoroughly enjoying some of the more respectful debate and edification (jiminy, gumboot, thank you).

I still love everyone here. And so does my mother.
So, as his hostess, can you clarify for us:
What the devil was the question?

[Pardalis]

This is the problem. It's very easy to say "they could have done something". But as soon as you look into what they actually could have done, you realise really there's nothing they could have done.

My personal layman opinion on this is that in the months prior to 9/11, there was also alot of bureaucratic obstacles and small department politics, maybe even nonchalance that prevented the right information to go to the right place (the CTists misinterpret this as deliberate obstruction).

This is why I think Hierosis' claim that some people should have been held accountable has merit.

[boloboffin]

The latest spin:

http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r195/imgstacke/wherestree.jpg

Because nobody could have cut down a tree in five years...

[Pardalis]

Besides, what does it matter?

[R.Mackey]

The latest spin:

http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r195/imgstacke/wherestree.jpg

Because nobody could have cut down a tree in five years...

Wow, that Killtown guy just never fails to disappoint, does he?

I might add that the "Big Ass Tree" is comparable in size to the cars parked in front of it... perhaps five meters branch diameter, though it's kinda hard to see just what's in that frame. Certainly not what I'd call a large tree (http://www.parks.ca.gov/default.asp?page_id=546) from my own experience. Definitely no big deal to remove.

This is only further proof (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2015378#post2015378) that the poor lad has never even experienced the real world. If he wasn't so toxic, I would deeply pity him.

[chipmunk stew]

The latest spin:

http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r195/imgstacke/wherestree.jpg

Because nobody could have cut down a tree in five years...
I was able to enhance the image. The results were quite surprising!

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g73/chipmunk_stew/wherestree_enhanced.jpg

edit: This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that MI5 was involved: https://www.mi5.gov.uk/output/Page493.html

[Pardalis]

And as far as I know, trees do not have arses, let alone big ones.

[Bell]

Wow, that Killtown guy just never fails to disappoint, does he?

I might add that the "Big Ass Tree" is comparable in size to the cars parked in front of it... perhaps five meters branch diameter, though it's kinda hard to see just what's in that frame. Certainly not what I'd call a large tree (http://www.parks.ca.gov/default.asp?page_id=546) from my own experience. Definitely no big deal to remove.

This is only further proof (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2015378#post2015378) that the poor lad has never even experienced the real world. If he wasn't so toxic, I would deeply pity him.

Killtown has quite some difficulties interpreting and judging scale, size and distance from pictures. But atleast he can now start harrassing the Double Tree management, instead of Val McClatchey.

[T.A.M.]

I bet Killtown loved the game "wheres waldo". He is the biggest nitpick I have ever seen, and what he picks at is freakin useless. So what, as was said, Trees are cut down all the time, or hit by motor vehicles, or they wither and die.

A better question, is "Where is the Flyover Jet we were promised???"

TAM

[Bell]

I bet Killtown loved the game "wheres waldo". He is the biggest nitpick I have ever seen, and what he picks at is freakin useless. So what, as was said, Trees are cut down all the time, or hit by motor vehicles, or they wither and die.

A better question, is "Where is the Flyover Jet we were promised???"

TAM

Oh well, as I said in my AA77 thread, posting that picture is a good way to evade the fact that no plane can be seen flying over the Pentagon.

My! I'm shocked! How are we going to debunk that?

[Regnad Kcin]

The "scramble Vs intercept" is often brought up in response to the "many intercepts" figure, but it is a very misleading response.

The 67 in the months prior to 9/11 (I think it was 6 months, not a year) should be considered intercepts, giving CTers the benefit of the doubt.

However...

NORAD's area of responsibility is the Air Defence Identification Zone - or ADIZ. This is a "buffer" zone located over water at the edges of the USA.

You can see the Continental US ADIZ here.

It is defined by Federal Aviation Regulation Part 99 section 43:



Intercepts inside the ADIZ are, and always have been, routine. There is standard proceedure for these intercepts.

However, the 9/11 attacks did not involve aircraft operating inside the ADIZ. They were domestic flights over CONUS (Continential United States) airspace. Prior to 9/11 there was NO standard intercept proceedure for flights inside CONUS. Standard hijacking proceedure was to notify the FAA and hand over control to the FBI. As a domestic crime, only the FBI had the authority to request military support.

So the question that should be asked is:

Did NORAD perform any successful intercepts inside CONUS Airspace prior to 9/11?

The answer is yes. In the decade prior to 9/11 NORAD was involved in ONE intercept.

This was October 25th, 1999. The aircraft was N47BA - a Learjet35 owned by Payne Stewart.

The NTSB report on this incident is here.

So how well did NORAD do on this occasion?

Well, first off, some basic comparisons:

1) N47BA did not deviate from its intended flightplan.
2) The transponder onboard N47BA remained on at all times throughout the intercept.

Neither of the above is true of the 9/11 flights. This make intercept many magnitudes more difficult.

So then, how well did NORAD do?

The first intercept aircraft - a test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin AFB, Florida, reached N47BA 81 minutes after communication was lost.

So let's compare that to the flights of 9/11, and total flight duration of those aircraft:

FLIGHT HIJACKING CRASH DURATION
AA11 0813 0846 33 minutes
UA175 0847 0903 16 minutes
AA77 0856 0937 41 minutes
UA93 0928 1003 35 minutes

So the intercept of N47BA - an aircraft with transponder functioning and in straight level flight - took almost TWICE AS LONG as the longest flight duration on 9/11 - that of AA77.

The facts speak for themselves. A successful intercept of any of the 9/11 flights was impossible.

-Gumboot

ETA.

It is worth noting that the times I gave are from the moment of hijacking. Of more relevance is the "window of opportunity" - the time between when NORAD were notified of a hijacking and when that flight crashed. On 9/11 the longest window of opportunity that NORAD would receive was 9 minutes for AA11. The N47BA intercept took 9 times as long.Oh yeah? Well, I bet Superman would've been able to intercept all four! On an off day!

Thus 9/11 was an inside job.

[jhunter1163]

Is there a way that one could access records of traffic accidents to see if the BAT was taken out by a drunk driver or maybe a semi sliding in the snow? In five years on a major roadway, I'd frankly be surprised if the tree WASN'T knocked down. (Rule 8) happens.

[TjW]

Clearly, the Keebler elves have moved.

[~enigma~]

Oh yeah? Well, I bet Superman would've been able to intercept all four! On an off day!

Thus 9/11 was an inside job.And the Flash could have done it with one hand tied behind his back :)

[uk_dave]

Our old mate Russell Pickering says:

I agree that it seems VERY reasonable to assume there is an image, still or video that should be clear. If they would give us an original analogue image from the security camera that hasn't been reduced in half twice we might see it.

The deal everybody has to decide on is why don't they want us to see it? It isn't what we were told or they don't want it resolved. Right now I believe it is the latter. The Pentagon is way too useful for them in their distraction.

When you wonder what something is, then just look what it does (before space beams and crap).

1) What divides the 9/11 investigation the most?

2) What provides the greatest ridicule of 9/11 researchers?

3) What consumes the energy of 9/11 researchers?

4) What theory was so effective at the Pentagon that they have now moved it to the WTC late in the game?

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1341

1) the woowoo

2) the woowoo

3) bickering and internet porn

4) hmmmmm what theory did russell once believe applied to the pentagon, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, and which he has now abandoned in favour of another theory which is contrary to common sense?

Russell, why did you once believe the 'no plane' fantasy at the pentagon?

[apathoid]

I figured the CT dorks would only chimp scream if the video clearly showed a plane, but they are screaming "fake!!" anyways, even though there isnt a plane? I'm :confused:
Does that make sense to anyone?

[Dog Town]

I figured the CT dorks would only chimp scream if the video clearly showed a plane, but they are screaming "fake!!" anyways, even though there isnt a plane? I'm :confused:
Does that make sense to anyone?

Sadly yes, they are so predictable. They will always have some tripe they cling to as scripture! Funny/ Pathetic, take your pick!

[Dazed]

Who actually thinks the FBI spent 5 years photoshopping a tree into every frame of a video that already doesn't show anything?

Do you think if the tree was absent you could see through the elevated highway?

[gumboot]

I figured the CT dorks would only chimp scream if the video clearly showed a plane, but they are screaming "fake!!" anyways, even though there isnt a plane? I'm :confused:
Does that make sense to anyone?


I think this is just evidence that the entire CT mindset is orientated, not towards finding out "the truth" but towards finding all and any errors or anomolies in the "official version".

-Gumboot

[Dazed]

Earlier in the thread, debunk911myths posted this pic

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/images/thumb/1/1a/Doubletree_armynavy2.jpg/600px-Doubletree_armynavy2.jpg

Which also shows the absence of the tree. Can you tell us when this picture was taken?

[Dog Town]

Dazed, I think it was just a few months back. Go to Kates' web page, it may say there, or e-mail her.

[Matthew Best]

Perhaps the point he's making is that the NWO deliberately planted a tree in that spot years in advance of the attacks, knowing that it would be necessary to obscure the view of the security camera. Now that the tree has done its work, it, like all blown government agents, is surplus to requirements and has thus been eliminated.

The NWO is ruthless!

[Dazed]

lol

Is your name inspired by Matthew Good?

[apathoid]

Perhaps the point he's making is that the NWO deliberately planted a tree in that spot years in advance of the attacks, knowing that it would be necessary to obscure the view of the security camera. Now that the tree has done its work, it, like all blown government agents, is surplus to requirements and has thus been eliminated.

The NWO is ruthless!

The budget has been tight after losing the 2.3 zillion dollars, and the tree was costing us about 60 cents/day to water and keep pruned, so it was axed - literally. I was a big opponent to the tree from the beginning. If I had my way, there would've been a big billboard installed in its place for the advertising revenue and subliminal mind control possibilities.

[Matthew Best]

Is your name inspired by Matthew Good?

You should know better than to ask questions about my NWO screen name in a public forum like this one! I'll answer in the super-secret-sub-forum we all go to when working out how to subvert the laws of physics (but the answer is "no").

[celestrin]

Where's the bad ass tree from the Doubletree Hotel video? Who cares. Those Killclowns are such amateurs. What we really need to figure out is what happened to the other tree!

[uk_dave]

Pickering Speaks (yet again):

Yes I agree.

Here are the details from the old forum: http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...opic=12296&st=0

But the people at the Doubletree were all weird and skittish too. I started talking with them nearly a year ago. Obviously there was nothing to hide as we have it now.

The games these a-holes are playing with this evidence is sickening.http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1326&st=90

When are these a-holes going to realise that they are nobodies?

They have no acreditation with a mainstream news source, they represent no law enforcement organisation or even registered private investigators.

They are just amatuer sleuths who somehow expect people to take the time and trouble to re-hash testimony they gave to the proper authorities 5 years ago.

No one is under any obligation to talk to these guys and they are certainly under no obligation to even tell the truth to these guys. If they want to they can yank their chains with tales of UFO's or the *****' loch ness monster having caused the damage to the pentagon, it makes no difference because amatuer sleuths such as the 'elite pentagon research team' (I love it!) are just enthusiasts 'investigating' a terrorist attack, the details of which appear to be beyond their comprehension.

It truly is a remarkable example of ego and delusion.

[T.A.M.]

The reason for their tirade over the Doubletree video, is obviously because it does not show any sign, not one frame, of a "Flyover" plane.

TAM

[PerryLogan]

And if it did, they would say it was faked.

[boloboffin]

The Hardly Boys in...

The Case of the DoubleTree Flyover

[snagswolf]

I've seen several 'versions' of this video (not sure why they're different), but take a look at this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H285_DWX_bQ

Look closely under the underpass. Something goes by there, and it seems to be in reasonable synchronation with the explosion. Looking at the overhead view, it does line up with where the plane should be.

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/images/thumb/c/c6/Doubletreemap.jpg/600px-Doubletreemap.jpg

Is anyone familiar enough with this area to say whether or not the plane's trajectory would be able to be seen underneath the overpass? Is there a traffic lane there (going in the proper direction) that could account for this object going by?

And is the speed correct? Considering that the plane would be further away from the camera than the traffic, it's hard to compare the two.

Or am I late to the dance (as usual) and this has been covered already?

[Hierosis]

I think what Stone means, is that any time you are asked what you believe happened on 9/11, you do one of three things.

Ignore the question
Dodge the question
Reply with a narrow statement about what you do not believeSo to repeat Stone:

Will you tell us what you believe 9/11 WAS a result of? If you are sincere, you will.

Grunion,

What I think many here are failing to understand is that, just because I don't accept the official explanation, that does not mean I have constructed my own alternate theory. In my opinion that would be extremely arrogant. I do not have the scientific background to fully explore the building collapses, and I don't have the time to take a class. I do not think I need to lay out a detailed theory here. I have some questions that I have put forth. But I do not contend to have a THEREFORE to follow. Not everyone who questions 9/11 has their own theory, just unanswered questions, or questions that they do not feel have been answered to their satisfaction, which is where I put myself. I don't see things as black and white.

If you want my opinion in a geo political sense (which I am very well schooled in), I would constantly go back to question of who has benefitted the most from the events of that day. Which is why I'm more inclined to fall into what most would call "LIHOP" but I think that's way too simple and there's much more too it.

This country has a history of a dark side that does not have any problem with lying to and manipulating the public to achieve their goals. I could list countless examples if you like, with the most obvious being the War in Iraq. When people ask me, "you really think the government would allow almost 3,000 of it's own people to die?" I always respond with, "well, what's the body count in Iraq right now? More than 2500. And why are we there again? Why are these kids dying? And what has the government done to reconcile a failed policy that has led to so many tragic deaths over the last 3 1/2 years?"

[Hierosis]

Politics, it has been going on for a long time.

Exactly. And it seemed very convenient that there was an Anthrax scare (hardly reported, but look it up) shortly after he said this at Senator Dayton's office. Which may or may not have helped finalize his decision not to seek a second term as he was rather popular in his home state among voters.

And I realize that this post is so "page 7" just hadn't seen it until now.

[Gravy]

Heirosis, assuming a LIHOP scenario because you believe certain parties may have benefitted from the 9/11 attacks is the kind of post hoc fallacy that we tend to discourage here. I'm not aware of any evidence that elements in the US government knew about the attacks and allowed them to happen. Are you?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Grunion,

What I think many here are failing to understand is that, just because I don't accept the official explanation, that does not mean I have constructed my own alternate theory. In my opinion that would be extremely arrogant. I do not have the scientific background to fully explore the building collapses, and I don't have the time to take a class. I do not think I need to lay out a detailed theory here. I have some questions that I have put forth. But I do not contend to have a THEREFORE to follow. Not everyone who questions 9/11 has their own theory, just unanswered questions, or questions that they do not feel have been answered to their satisfaction, which is where I put myself. I don't see things as black and white.

If you want my opinion in a geo political sense (which I am very well schooled in), I would constantly go back to question of who has benefitted the most from the events of that day. Which is why I'm more inclined to fall into what most would call "LIHOP" but I think that's way too simple and there's much more too it.

This country has a history of a dark side that does not have any problem with lying to and manipulating the public to achieve their goals. I could list countless examples if you like, with the most obvious being the War in Iraq. When people ask me, "you really think the government would allow almost 3,000 of it's own people to die?" I always respond with, "well, what's the body count in Iraq right now? More than 2500. And why are we there again? Why are these kids dying? And what has the government done to reconcile a failed policy that has led to so many tragic deaths over the last 3 1/2 years?"

Present objective, verifiable evidence that the EBC is incorrect, or stfu.

[Kent1]

I've seen several 'versions' of this video (not sure why they're different), but take a look at this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H285_DWX_bQ

Look closely under the underpass. Something goes by there, and it seems to be in reasonable synchronation with the explosion. Looking at the overhead view, it does line up with where the plane should be.

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/images/thumb/c/c6/Doubletreemap.jpg/600px-Doubletreemap.jpg

Is anyone familiar enough with this area to say whether or not the plane's trajectory would be able to be seen underneath the overpass? Is there a traffic lane there (going in the proper direction) that could account for this object going by?

And is the speed correct? Considering that the plane would be further away from the camera than the traffic, it's hard to compare the two.

Or am I late to the dance (as usual) and this has been covered already?

You can ask flight77 for a higher rez one. But the best one I got was still only 2.8 megs. I think it shows the plane and the tail. Although its hard to tell.

[Pardalis]

What I think many here are failing to understand is that, just because I don't accept the official explanation, that does not mean I have constructed my own alternate theory.

snip

Not everyone who questions 9/11 has their own theory, just unanswered questions, or questions that they do not feel have been answered to their satisfaction, which is where I put myself.

I think that's fair enough. Good point.

But remember Hieoris, this is a discussion forum, you don' tseem to want to debate any of this. Don't feel antognised when we ask you to finish your thoughts, or to back your claims. It is what we're here to do. ;) :)

If you want my opinion in a geo political sense (which I am very well schooled in), I would constantly go back to question of who has benefitted the most from the events of that day. Which is why I'm more inclined to fall into what most would call "LIHOP" but I think that's way too simple and there's much more too it.

I'm perfectly willing to debate the LIHOP scenario, I think it's at best plausible. but it is very hard to prove, because alot of the claims of LIHOP are from hindsight, and almost all of it is speculation.

This country has a history of a dark side that does not have any problem with lying to and manipulating the public to achieve their goals. I could list countless examples if you like, with the most obvious being the War in Iraq. When people ask me, "you really think the government would allow almost 3,000 of it's own people to die?" I always respond with, "well, what's the body count in Iraq right now? More than 2500. And why are we there again? Why are these kids dying? And what has the government done to reconcile a failed policy that has led to so many tragic deaths over the last 3 1/2 years?"

These are soldiers, trained to do what they do. It's an extremely different thing to kill 3000 of your own civilians.

This is not about politics. It's about the facts. Anybody can speculate.

[Kryptos]

I've seen several 'versions' of this video (not sure why they're different), but take a look at this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H285_DWX_bQ

Look closely under the underpass. Something goes by there, and it seems to be in reasonable synchronation with the explosion. Looking at the overhead view, it does line up with where the plane should be.

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/images/thumb/c/c6/Doubletreemap.jpg/600px-Doubletreemap.jpg

Is anyone familiar enough with this area to say whether or not the plane's trajectory would be able to be seen underneath the overpass? Is there a traffic lane there (going in the proper direction) that could account for this object going by?

And is the speed correct? Considering that the plane would be further away from the camera than the traffic, it's hard to compare the two.

Or am I late to the dance (as usual) and this has been covered already?

Hmm... I hadn't seen that version of the video. I still have doubts that one could see through the underpass, from that angle. This is the underpass, which has an on-ramp to I-395 through here. The timing of that blip is intriguing, but maybe it was just a car or truck getting on the highway?

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/images/thumb/7/71/Doubletree_armynavy.jpg/600px-Doubletree_armynavy.jpg

[Gravy]

Hmm... I hadn't seen that version of the video. I still have doubts that one could see through the underpass, from that angle. This is the underpass, which has an on-ramp to I-395 through here. The timing of that blip is intriguing, but maybe it was just a car or truck getting on the highway?

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/images/thumb/7/71/Doubletree_armynavy.jpg/600px-Doubletree_armynavy.jpgAah! I just tracked down your photo and was about to post it. I knew I should have waited! My guess is that we're looking at a vehicle on an access road/ramp. The object doesn't seem to be moving fast enough to be the plane. The fireball rises up just as the rear of the object goes out of view to the right of the underpass, and that seems to be much too soon. Just a guess though.

[Kent1]

Aah! I just tracked down your photo and was about to post it. I knew I should have waited! My guess is that we're looking at a vehicle on an access road/ramp. The object doesn't seem to be moving fast enough to be the plane. The fireball rises up just as the rear of the object goes out of view to the right of the underpass, and that seems to be much too soon. Just a guess though.
I don't think the underpass is anything to do with the plane.

[snagswolf]

Hmm... I hadn't seen that version of the video. I still have doubts that one could see through the underpass, from that angle. This is the underpass, which has an on-ramp to I-395 through here. The timing of that blip is intriguing, but maybe it was just a car or truck getting on the highway?

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/images/thumb/7/71/Doubletree_armynavy.jpg/600px-Doubletree_armynavy.jpg
Thanks. Based on that view, I tend to agree with you.

It's odd that something would be going through there though, without starting from the left before the underpass.

[Mince]

This is a sick way to promote Pilots for 9/11 TWOOF (otherwise known as a website/forum designed to sell outrageously priced, low-quality youtube videos on DVD).


It is not their footage. This video was not brought to anyone by PfT. This video was brought to us by the wonderful people of the DoubleTree hotel and Judicial Watch (who legally required its release). To falsely claim credit for its release (as PfT seemingly has) might be illegal.

[snagswolf]

I don't think the underpass is anything to do with the plane.
I don't think what seems to be the tail of the airplane above the roadway is actually the tail.

The reason I don't think that is, at the moment of impact, the plane struck the bottom of the Pentagon wall. Some eyewitnesses even say it touched the ground just before it hit the wall.

If that's true, and it seems to be the general consensus, then the tail of the airplane wasn't above the top of the Pentagon. From the position of the video camera, the top of the Pentagon is blocked by the roadway. If the tail was below the top of the Pentagon, then there's no way we could see the tail.

Also, at least in my perception, the 'tail' goes past the explosion point and continues down the road.

[Kent1]

I don't think what seems to be the tail of the airplane above the roadway is actually the tail.

The reason I don't think that is, at the moment of impact, the plane struck the bottom of the Pentagon wall. Some eyewitnesses even say it touched the ground just before it hit the wall.

If that's true, and it seems to be the general consensus, then the tail of the airplane wasn't above the top of the Pentagon. From the position of the video camera, the top of the Pentagon is blocked by the roadway. If the tail was below the top of the Pentagon, then there's no way we could see the tail.

Also, at least in my perception, the 'tail' goes past the explosion point and continues down the road.

I think we are looking at different things. Also it does help to get a higher rez version. The possible tail is dark and blurry behind the white. The "tail" dips below, before the impact. (But again I'm not certain)

[Gravy]

I was only looking at what's visible below the overpass, not above. I give up.

[snagswolf]

I think we are looking at different things. Also it does help to get a higher rez version. The possible tail is dark and blurry behind the white. The "tail" dips below, before the impact.
Ok, I've requesting the mpeg from Flight77. Thanks for that hookup.

[Kent1]

Ok, I've requesting the mpeg from Flight77. Thanks for that hookup.

Duh whoops, or I can send it to anyone who requests it, just e-mail debunk911@hotmail.com.

File size 2.8 meg

[Brainster]

Exactly. And it seemed very convenient that there was an Anthrax scare (hardly reported, but look it up) shortly after he said this at Senator Dayton's office. Which may or may not have helped finalize his decision not to seek a second term as he was rather popular in his home state among voters.

Wrong. Dayton closed his office (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/12/senator.terror/) in October 2004 until after the elections based on a supposed briefing by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, but was the only member of Congress to do so and took quite a bit of criticism for his actions. He was considered vulnerable before that and his approval ratings declined substantially thereafter. Dayton was called "The Blunderer" (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1183984,00.html) in April of this year by Time Magazine, which rated him as one of the five worst Senators. He decided not to run for a second term as he was considered unlikely to win (although he might have hung on given the Democrats' general level of success last month).

[Kryptos]

The possible tail is dark and blurry behind the white. The "tail" dips below, before the impact. (But again I'm not certain)

At the moment, I'm down the street from the Doubletree. It's dark and I don't have my camera along, but went by there again. I think the vantage point from the Doubletree is too poor and far away.

I think the dark and blurry blob continues along the highway. Though, a look at the higher resolution version would help.

[Dog Town]

I know none of us buy the fake tree crap! This pic blows a hole right through it. I don't wanna post this pic, too big. It is archived here.
http://www.webcitation.org/5KsH1eIkK

I see trees. This pic still shows Pentagon torn up, so that dates it.

ETA: funny part is this is a twoofer discovery, yet they can't see the forest...
Classic!

DT

[Retrograde]

Where's the bad ass tree from the Doubletree Hotel video?

And what is a tree but an overgrown bush? And if that doesn't prove, um, uh, whatever - my brain hurts when I try to think like a conspiracist.

On another forum, a CTer asked why there are so many good pictures of plane #2 hitting the WTC while there are only a couple of blurry inconclusive ones of the Pentagon? So that proves it was a missle! Where did they expect all the cameras in the major media hub of the US to be when the largest building in the largest city on the continent was in flames - as opposed to some random parking lot surveillance cameras several hundred miles away?

[W6102LA]

Video At Odds with FBI Affidavit Suggesting Videos Did Not Depict AttackJudicialwatch also have the video/s now....

http://www.judicialwatch.org/6068.shtml

[Dazed]

Probably nothing.

[Pardalis]

Is it Bigfoot?

[Dazed]

I dunno, but its clearly not in the previous or the next frame.

It just pops up right before the impact. Do you think it could be the tail? The angle doesn't seem right to me.

[Pardalis]

I can't make heads or tails with it. There are alot of cars passing by.

[Dazed]

Cars? Clearly you haven't done your homework.

http://www.editoreric.com/skeptics/OS%20Nessie%20small.gif

[Gamolon]

"the govt admitted having 84 other recordings related flight 77, but since none of the 84 show the "impact", we had to file a second FOIA request for those recordings. that FOIA request was denied, and we've since filed an appeal."



5 years later we get /2/ of those 84 videos. Sounds like they're locked up in secret to me.

ETA: And this is because the FBI was forced against their will by a court order to release them, and they still stalled past the date of Nov. 9th given by the court for the release.

Question.

How could it be a secret if you KNOW they're locked up?

[Dazed]

Because the people who originally possessed the tapes told journalists that they were confiscated. Eg, the citgo manager, the doubletree employees.

Had they not, how would we know about them?

Just for the record, reading my other comments should make it obvious that I'm not trying to say this is evidence of a conspiracy. I'm just saying it enables CTs to carry on with this no-plane nonsense.

[tacodaemon]

The Pentagon gatehouse camera footage may not have shown a flyover, even had it occured. As I calculated, the aircraft would have crossed the entire expanse of the frame in one second, and the camera was only taking one frame a second. It was lucky that the camera caught the aircraft at all.

In contrast, the Doubleday footage appears to be operating at a much higher frame rate. As such, this camera would CERTAINLY catch anything flying low above The Pentagon.

Following up on the feeling some folks have that that white shape in the Doubletree footage is the tail of AA77... you wouldn't happen to know how to calculate just how big a 757's tail at however many km from the camera would look that really was it, would you? I also kind of felt like that fast-moving object could be part of the plane, but on the other hand I have a gut feeling that a plane's tail that far away, even on a fairly large jet, would look a lot smaller than that. I have no idea how to calculate this so I could be completely wrong though.

ETA: I'm talking about the blur visible above the road, which might just as well be a fast-moving truck or some such, not the eerie blip visible at the underpass at 0:01 to 0:02 that snagswolf pointed out (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2150980#post2150980). Like some others, though, I don't think it would have been possible to see all the way to the other side of the underpass from the camera's viewing angle.

[gumboot]

Following up on the feeling some folks have that that white shape in the Doubletree footage is the tail of AA77... you wouldn't happen to know how to calculate just how big a 757's tail at however many km from the camera would look that really was it, would you?


It could be done in theory, or at least to a ballpark. Basically, you need to determine the location of the camera and the white object. Using the angle of view of the camera, you can then determine the physical measurement across the width/height of the frame at the distance where the aircraft allegedly appears. The dimensions of the "tail" can then be converted to a physical measurement as a percentage of the frame.

It won't be super accurate, but you could get a ball-park.

-Gumboot

[Bell]

You guys should ask Killtown. He's plenty good at photo analysis.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

You guys should ask Killtown. He's plenty good at photo analysis.

I have to stab you now.



j/k

[Kent1]

Extended Doubletree video, plus different cameras.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mseU9tpwxsA

(Looks like the other cameras aren't working links yet)

[Oliver]

Extended Doubletree video, plus different cameras.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mseU9tpwxsA

mseU9tpwxsA

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Youtube timestamp of 01:48, video timestamp of 09-11-2001 09:34:01, is right at impact.

[Arus808]

Youtube timestamp of 01:48, video timestamp of 09-11-2001 09:34:01, is right at impact.

Did you see the guy, walking into the driveway suddenly turn around at that point?

[apathoid]

Youtube timestamp of 01:48, video timestamp of 09-11-2001 09:34:01, is right at impact.

The Doubletrees clock must be about 4 minutes off, the official impact time for AA77 is 9:37:45. Only a matter of time until the Cters grasp onto this as yet more proof that the video is doctored..

[Arus808]

The Doubletrees clock must be about 4 minutes off, the official impact time for AA77 is 9:37:45. Only a matter of time until the Cters grasp onto this as yet more proof that the video is doctored..

yeah , like its not possible to have thousands of clocks in the same time to be off by minutes.

The clock in my car is 10 minutes fast.
the micro clock is still blinking 12 mindnight
my vcr clock is set to the woman on the phone
my cable sattelite receiver shows that the time is actually 2 minutes slower than the woman who gives you the time over the phone.
and I keep one of my clocks set to HST so that I dont forget what time it is back home