9/11 documentary now

[aguero93:20]

All i will say is the planes that hit the towers where at full throttle and we had no trouble at all seeing those.

From a distance, a CCTV camera close up would have picked up a flicker at most, it's to do with the lateral range of the shot. If you're half a mile away shooting a mile wide photo of the approach and the plane is travelling at 400 miles an hour it'll be in camera shot for 7-8 seconds, if you're 10 metres away shooting a 10 metre wide shot it'll be in camera shot for 0.0061 seconds, way too fast for a CCTV cameras frame rate.

 

[Manchester_lalala]

If you want to believe in the billions to one chance that a magic passport not only survived the impact but floated to earth ready to be discovered fair enough. Not just any passport, but a hijackers passport. Never mind everything else.

That's fine. You choose to believe the official conspiracy theory, I don't.

No harm, no foul.

Back to today and more important matters: 3-0 - Kelechi brace, and DeBruyne.

Wasn't there bits of plane found scattered across numerous of blocks within the wtc? Where do you get this billion to one from aswell? To me, it doesn't seem that far fetched finding one of the terrorists passports.

 

[Kazzydeyna]

Wasn't there bits of plane found scattered across numerous of blocks within the wtc? Where do you get this billion to one from aswell? To me, it doesn't seem that far fetched finding one of the terrorists passports.

Fair enough. I cannot accept it as blind luck.

There are still 100's of victims remains still unidentifiable even with today's Dna technology, but a paper passport belonging to a hijacker who would himself have been vapourised at moment of impact somehow survived. If he had it on him when he was vapourised (as lots of passengers do) how did it survive? If it was in his jacket or bag in the overhead locker (the only other place it could have been) how did it survive? We're not talking about a desk or a notepad from the building itself surviving here , but a passport from the hijacker.and not just surviving but landing ON TOP OF the rubble.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

 

[purplenose]

The aeroplane was travelling at 460 knots; about the speed of a bullet. Security camera frame rates aren't very fast and would have been much slower in 2001 than now so it's no great surprise that not much was recorded. Smart phones hadn't been invented yet but there were plenty of witnesses who saw it happen; something the conspiracy theorists like to ignore.

You are getting pretty desperate now, we are talking about 2001 not 1901....I have images of lightnings going through the sound barrier back in the 70s and 80s, with very dismal cameras. Boeing 757s cant to even get close to those speeds and would be easilly identifiable, equally to suggest that the Pentagon was not covered by numerous cameras is pure nonsense. Whatever hit that wall has been captured on film/still but for some reason has been deemed unfit for public viewing.

You mention eye witnesses, when it comes to members of the public you would be surprised what they claim to have seen when it comes to aviation. Some witnesses claim to have seen the or an aircraft climbimg away from the Pentagon, others have claimed to have seen fighters in the area, You would be amazed how many people have told me how they love the Vulcan when the pilot hits the reheat!!!

I have unfortunately witnessed 4 fatal accidents over the years at airshows in each case very few of the general public were able to give an accurate account in witness statements and have sworn blind that they saw things happen that the subsequent enquiry finds did not.

Some on here may have witnessed the Spitfire crash at Woodford some years ago, the vast majority who were asked give a statement were adamant that the engine had spluttered and lost power just before the pilot got into trouble....it did not, the accident was purely pilot error, obviously so to a trained eye.

In the case of the Pentagon I am not aware of one credible witness who clearly identified a Boeing 757 hitting the wall at the Pentagon.

 

[aguero93:20]

I have unfortunately witnessed 4 fatal accidents over the years at airshows in each case very few of the general public were able to give an accurate account in witness statements and have sworn blind that they saw things happen that the subsequent enquiry finds did not.

Sounds like a conspiracy if you ask me.

 

[jay_mcfc]

After 15 years and endless numbers of documentaries and reports from both sides you'd have thought people would have made their minds up about which side of the fenc they sit on by now. I don't think all the back and forth regurgitation is gonna change anyone's mind.

Fwiw I have always had two major doubts, the first one being WTC 7 and the other being the hit on the Pentagon. After reading this thread I watched two videos that tried to debunk the conspiracies of them both. I have to say the WTC 7 has me not so sure after being utterly convinced that it was pulled down on purpose. I'd never seen the damage to the south facing side of the building before and it's certainly bad enough to cause serious structural damage to the building. I still believe that the way it came down, especially as it was so similar to the other two, it was still pulled down but I'm definitely more open to the official version than I was before. Ans I'll never get my head around the media reporting the collapse before it happened. There's even one video of a news reporter reporting that it had collapsed and then a few minutes later it collapses in the background behind him live on video.

The debunking of the Pentagon attack did nothing to convince me that the official version was definitely the truth. It just left a lot more questions to be honest.

 

[west didsblue]

You are getting pretty desperate now, we are talking about 2001 not 1901....I have images of lightnings going through the sound barrier back in the 70s and 80s, with very dismal cameras. Boeing 757s cant to even get close to those speeds and would be easilly identifiable, equally to suggest that the Pentagon was not covered by numerous cameras is pure nonsense. Whatever hit that wall has been captured on film/still but for some reason has been deemed unfit for public viewing.

You mention eye witnesses, when it comes to members of the public you would be surprised what they claim to have seen when it comes to aviation. Some witnesses claim to have seen the or an aircraft climbimg away from the Pentagon, others have claimed to have seen fighters in the area, You would be amazed how many people have told me how they love the Vulcan when the pilot hits the reheat!!!

I have unfortunately witnessed 4 fatal accidents over the years at airshows in each case very few of the general public were able to give an accurate account in witness statements and have sworn blind that they saw things happen that the subsequent enquiry finds did not.

Some on here may have witnessed the Spitfire crash at Woodford some years ago, the vast majority who were asked give a statement were adamant that the engine had spluttered and lost power just before the pilot got into trouble....it did not, the accident was purely pilot error, obviously so to a trained eye.

In the case of the Pentagon I am not aware of one credible witness who clearly identified a Boeing 757 hitting the wall at the Pentagon.

Sorry, not me who's desparate. AA77 hit the west face of the pentagon which is less than 100 metres from South Washington Boulevard. At 530mph it was flying over Pentagon grounds for less than half a second. If you bothered to read up on how security cameras work, they are not optimised to record objects flying at that sort of speed. It would have been more suspicious if a security camera actually had recorded a clear image of an aircraft.

Comparing it to airshows where people have high resolution cameras that the operator would actually point at the object and follow it is just stupid, as is comparing it to flight test engineers taking photos of fast moving aircraft even in the 1970s. They were using equipment specifically designed for that job. Security cameras are simply not designed to pick up objects moving at over 500mph even top of the range ones. Frame rates and shutter speeds would make it highly unlikely.

I also witnessed the Spitfire crash at Woodford in '92. There were thousands of people pointing cameras at it so it wasn't difficult to work out what happened as is the case with any Airshow crash and as was also the case with the twin towers where tourists are taking pictures and videos all the time. I think, without exception, everyone recognised the Spitfire as an aeroplane as did the witnesses who saw the aircraft hit the Pentagon.

As for credible witnesses, there were dozens of them.
Here's some quotes:

USA Today reporter Mike Walter was driving on Washington Boulevard when he witnessed the crash, which he recounted,

I looked out my window and I saw this plane, this jet, an American Airlines jet, coming. And I thought, 'This doesn't add up, it's really low.' And I saw it. I mean it was like a cruise missile with wings. It went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon.[59]

Terrance Kean, who lived in a nearby apartment building, heard the noise of loud jet engines, glanced out his window, and saw a "very, very large passenger jet". He watched "it just plow right into the side of the Pentagon. The nose penetrated into the portico. And then it sort of disappeared, and there was fire and smoke everywhere."[60] Tim Timmerman, who is a pilot himself, noticed American Airlines markings on the aircraft as he saw it hit the Pentagon.[61] Other drivers on Washington Boulevard, Interstate 395, and Columbia Pike witnessed the crash, as did people in Pentagon City, Crystal City, and other nearby locations.

 

[west didsblue]

Fair enough. I cannot accept it as blind luck.

There are still 100's of victims remains still unidentifiable even with today's Dna technology, but a paper passport belonging to a hijacker who would himself have been vapourised at moment of impact somehow survived. If he had it on him when he was vapourised (as lots of passengers do) how did it survive? If it was in his jacket or bag in the overhead locker (the only other place it could have been) how did it survive? We're not talking about a desk or a notepad from the building itself surviving here , but a passport from the hijacker.and not just surviving but landing ON TOP OF the rubble.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

What makes you think that the hijacker would be vaporised on impact. There's no fuel tanks at the front of a 767. He would have been pulverised, not vaporised and there's no reason why one of the small pieces he would have broken into couldn't have been his passport.

 

[StrangewaysHereWeCome]

What makes you think that the hijacker would be vaporised on impact.

The big fuck off ball of flame vaporised him just after impact then?

There's no fuel tanks at the front of a 767.

Pedant! :)

 

[west didsblue]

All i will say is the planes that hit the towers where at full throttle and we had no trouble at all seeing those.

Neither did the witnesses of the Pentagon crash. The difference is that lower Manhattan is one of the most photographed and videoed places on Earth and the area around the Pentagon isn't. Even so, there were only two recordings of the plane hitting the first tower and it's difficult to see the plane on those. Different story for the second one as there were thousands pointing cameras at it.