I can't see the plane...
Archived26 replies · 408 views
Craig W wrote: Can you?
realplayers being a prick and I can't be arsed pasting the link to windows, so I haven't seen the stream......but.....errrrmmmmm.....
Isn;t that the very same camera ( based on position, field of view and colour temperature) that used was the one that had the only footage....which had a before frame and an after frame and no "smack" frame. Conspiracy freaks are gonna love it. Actually I seem to recall reading somewhere that there are several hi res FMV cameras voering the area and the FBI or some lot have all the tapes from that day, surely releasing one of those would have been better?
It is the same camera; this time with rolling pictures rather than frames. I saw it on TV the other night and I can't see any plane- all I saw was a flash of thin white blurriness (about 4 ft off the ground travelling in a parallel line with the ground) which does look very missle like...
Just my impression of it; wondering if anyone else thought it actually looked like a plane?
First of all, what kind of plane was it ?
Secondly : the pilot is a good one, especially if it is a commercial plane.
a novice, flying a big passenger plane at that altitude and angle?
what next? Maureen from Driving School winning the F1 at Silverstone in her Lada?
Dont think I've ever seen anything as implausible as that
....oh wait, scousers winning last seasons champs league 
Barney Army wrote: Maureen from Driving School winning the F1 at Silverstone in her Lada?
I'll give you even money on her finishing ahead of Jesnon :D
EDIT: and being less of a rolling chicane than team supercrazyjapaneseygeezer
Fair point tho. I recall a pilot saying that the twin towers were a piece of piss but that hitting the pentagon would be hard. For one thing an aircraft of that size would be in ground effect below 100ft, which to an unprepaired pilot would totall change his aircraft's handling to the point he couldn;t control it. It supposedly took street lights out on the freeway a good half mile away, straight and level at 0 feet in a plane that has just become very different to the one you were flying at altitude. Of course, a lot of people get on like he was aiming for a certain desk in the pentagon, the thing is fuckin HUGE. And the missile theory is even less plausible because in all honesty, it require that the fucking USAF could hit someething as small as the pentagon, cunts can't even bomb the right country more often then not.
You are right Barney. I doubt they use fighters for commercial flights in this company...
Boiengs or Airbuses do not fly this way. They are too slow to react like this. You must be a very good pilot to aim a five floors flat with a plane like this. And I wonder if it is also possible to do this with an Embraer 135 to 145 or with a Bombardier of CRJ series...
It was already a challenge to hit the Twin Towers with a B767 without GPS or some kind of ILS device... Pentagon with a plane like this... Even pilots out of Top Gun would fail in this mission... That is my point of view and I am no expert...
If this 'video' was meant to quash conspiracies it looks like it's been abject failure!
If it's not a plane (it seems to be the consensus that it isn't) what is it???
Craig W wrote:
If it's not a plane (it seems to be the consensus that it isn't) what is it???
Superman.......pissed? :\ohwell:
I think it was an American Airlines Boeing 757....not the biggest but not the smallest either.
When Sky and the Beeb started showing this on their "Breaking News' last night you couldnt see anything at all, even Anna Botting was saying she could see bugger all, but I see tonight there are two extra frames tacked on the beginning which show something white and blurry travelling only a couple of metres off the ground before the big fireball.
The first 'afters' footage from the air clearly shows a wheel assembly from a biggish airliner lying in the burning rubble. How that could have been 'planted' is beyond me though.
Barney Army wrote:
Dont think I've ever seen anything as implausible as that
....oh wait, scousers winning last seasons champs league
Up yer arse!
a B757 ? It had no more fuel in it ? Because the damage it did are not so important for a plane of that range... And, even with gears up, its height is at least two floors high... Then, it was not a novice on controls... Steve, I think what you said has sense. How could it fly so low without having damaged other things on its way ?
According to a news bulletin I saw on Wednesday, the film was edited to remove the plane, for reasons of taste and to minimise distress that would predictably be suffered by families of those who died.
hugh mcphail wrote: According to a news bulletin I saw on Wednesday, the film was edited to remove the plane, for reasons of taste and to minimise distress that would predictably be suffered by families of those who died.
ahhhh,
in that case I might release a film of me throwing one off, with the caveat 'I removed Juliette Binoche from the film in order not to distress Diggy'
Barney Army wrote: in that case I might release a film of me throwing one off, with the caveat 'I removed Juliette Binoche from the film in order not to distress Diggy'
I think you've already been made a Kaniggit of the order of NOOL so the only thing I can say is All hail president BA of jesusland.
hugh mcphail wrote: According to a news bulletin I saw on Wednesday, the film was edited to remove the plane, for reasons of taste and to minimise distress that would predictably be suffered by families of those who died.
So what is the point in showing the film ?
And then, why all the world has seen the collapse of the WTC ? Have they replaced the planes by kites ? Never seen this version...
And why a picture of an innocent civilian dead Iraqi is politically correct when the exposure of a coalition dead soldier is not ? Is that the privilege of the winner who writes history ?
Jiphy wrote:
And then, why all the world has seen the collapse of the WTC ? Have they replaced the planes by kites ? Never seen this version...?
good fuckin point 
Steve Campbell wrote:
And the missile theory is even less plausible because in all honesty, it require that the fucking USAF could hit someething as small as the pentagon, cunts can't even bomb the right country more often then not.
the air force can hit the right country, steve. it's the correct buildings they have trouble with.
AgentWood wrote:
Steve Campbell wrote:
And the missile theory is even less plausible because in all honesty, it require that the fucking USAF could hit someething as small as the pentagon, cunts can't even bomb the right country more often then not.
the air force can hit the right country, steve. it's the correct buildings they have trouble with.
I know everyone is having abit of fun, and being sarcastic and all . . .but just in case, the accuracy we have today is pretty amazing.
JHC
So, assuming someone in the US govenment deceided they needed to fire one of their own missiles at The Pentagon because the whole twin towers thing wasn't enough, where exactly did American Airlines flight 77 disappear to ??
Dave Legge wrote: So, assuming someone in the US govenment deceided they needed to fire one of their own missiles at The Pentagon because the whole twin towers thing wasn't enough, where exactly did American Airlines flight 77 disappear to ??
That's what I was wondering?
Maybe the USAF shot it down- would be pretty hard to hide the left overs thou'
68Pontiac wrote:
AgentWood wrote:
Steve Campbell wrote:
And the missile theory is even less plausible because in all honesty, it require that the fucking USAF could hit someething as small as the pentagon, cunts can't even bomb the right country more often then not.
the air force can hit the right country, steve. it's the correct buildings they have trouble with.
I know everyone is having abit of fun, and being sarcastic and all . . .but just in case, the accuracy we have today is pretty amazing.
JHC
So you AIM at those hospitals, orphanges, embassies and allied troops. Not to mention hitting Iran and syria when aiming at Iraq LOL. The Brittish servicemen killed by US bullets would be pleased to hear they were the intended target.
Sorry, but your air force are a legend even among your own ground forces...what was that unit called in WWII in Italy...the Kentucy luftwaffe??? cos they would get bored half way to the target and randomly drop their loads on US lines, I seem to recall thay in the battle for Monte casino, they killed twice as may US servicemen as the Germans.
See you cannot have it both ways....either your weapons are accurate and you aim at all these innocent targets, or you just make the accuracy shit up.
HEHEHEHE, a former boss of mine used to be an army medic, he was in Gulf war part 1....and claims he received the following briefing....."if yu are engaged by friendly forces, do not return fire, take cover and call into HQ, unles forces are US, in which case, treat as hostile"
I was a medic in Gulf War I as well... I can definitely say that the weapons discipline of the US forces was shocking compared to UK weapons discipline!
