[E.Ville Von Love]

Originally Posted by kconn61686

i do. ive seen so many documentaries and read so much expert commentary, i have a great understanding for the concoction of the building's infrastructure and the depiction given by the government on how the trade center fell is 110% accurate.

what was their dipiction??

[JCB]

There's one thing that I don't get, though, out of the whole Pentagon thing. The five frames of video footage that were released of the crash show no plane. However, it doesn't show a missile either. In fact, it doesn't show anything at all. It just shows a fire erupting from the pentagon. Nothing else.

[JCB]

I just found this out. Whoever said there were no windows on the plane that hit the South Tower is lying. Proof:

[PetroToZoran]

Originally Posted by kconn61686

i do. ive seen so many documentaries and read so much expert commentary, i have a great understanding for the concoction of the building's infrastructure and the depiction given by the government on how the trade center fell is 110% accurate.

Yea, but there is a lot of difference between what is academically true and what is actually true. For example, a bridge may be built to support 20,000 tons, but that is only the academic number. In real life, it may be a lot more or a lot less and therefore only theorizing about a building can and can't take before it falls down is a very shaky science.

Also, on the video, I watched the very beginning where they talk about the temperature it requires to melt titanium. First, the impact created by a jet crashing into a building will create a huge amount of heat, even without the fuel. Secondly, you don't need the infrastructure to melt to have the building collapse. The impact could have badly damaged the infrastructure and support of the building- even at the bottom. So at the beginning, a lot of heat was created and the infrastructure was badly damaged. After some time, the infrastructure could no longer hold up and the building collapsed.

The reason it looks so close to a building that was detonated is that buildings that collapse at the bottom, generally look the same way when they collapse, whether it was caused by a bomb or the support could no longer hold up the building.

[PetroToZoran]

Originally Posted by Chaser 55

There's one thing that I don't get, though, out of the whole Pentagon thing. The five frames of video footage that were released of the crash show no plane. However, it doesn't show a missile either. In fact, it doesn't show anything at all. It just shows a fire erupting from the pentagon. Nothing else.

Because its very difficult for a camera which captures frames at something like 4 frames per second which is made for watching people move at 4 mph and try and capture a plane flying at 500 mph.

[JCB]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...e/1227842.html

this is the truth behind 9/11

[netsgiants]

something i got to watch on a weekend, but i don't like the idea of this topic being brought up, we just started to get some closure and this garbage is getting broughtup

[socco]

Originally Posted by kconn61686

i do. ive seen so many documentaries and read so much expert commentary, i have a great understanding for the concoction of the building's infrastructure and the depiction given by the government on how the trade center fell is 110% accurate.

I'm in no place to judge whether you're an expert in the field or not, but I think it's safe to say the vast majority of us have absolutely no clue. That was my point.

Originally Posted by Chaser 55

There's one thing that I don't get, though, out of the whole Pentagon thing. The five frames of video footage that were released of the crash show no plane. However, it doesn't show a missile either. In fact, it doesn't show anything at all. It just shows a fire erupting from the pentagon. Nothing else.

You can see something on the right side in the first picture.

Originally Posted by netsgiants

but i don't like the idea of this topic being brought up, we just started to get some closure and this garbage is getting broughtup

This isn't something new. The first time I watched something like this was two years ago.

[JCB]

Originally Posted by PetroToZoran

Because its very difficult for a camera which captures frames at something like 4 frames per second which is made for watching people move at 4 mph and try and capture a plane flying at 500 mph.

ok, but the video from the Sheridan Hotel was across the street, meaning it had a panoramic view of the Pentagon. One of the frames in that video should have been able to capture footage of a plane or a missile.

And the footage that was released was not from the Sheridan Hotel. It was from a security camera outside an entrance to the pentagon. The camera was only about 200 feet from where the crash happened. This does not give a wide view to look at. It is understandable to see why nothing was visible in this footage, since it was so close to the site. For example, let's say someone throws a basketball right across the bridge of your nose. You have to keep your eyes on the ball at all times. It is very unlikely that you will be able to do so, since the ball is so close to your eyes. But let's say that same ball is thrown across your body, but this time from 20 feet in front of you. It's easier to keep your eyes on the ball, isn't it. This analogy can be used here. The video from the Sheridan, which was further away from the crash, would have an easier time picking up a plane or missile than from a video that was almost right in front of the crash. What I'm saying is, this footage is pointless because it shows nothing but a large fireball. Also, it is only 5 frames.

The footage from the Sheridan or from the gas station across the street also shot from a different angle. It shot from almost straight on, where as, the footage that was released was from a side angle. Looking at the building straight on would allow the video to pick up the plane, and the plane would be present in at least 2 of those frames. We'll use the basketball analogy again. Let's say someone throws that ball across your body from 10 feet away. You keep your eyes on the ball, but you cannot swivel your head. Now, lets say the person throws the ball from directly behind you. It passes over your head, then comes into your sight. Again, you keep your eyes on the ball, but do not swivel your head. In which instance do you have more time to look at the ball? When it is coming from behind you. This is why the video from the Sheridan would, again, be more useful than the footage that was released.

Basically what I'm getting at is that the wrong footage was released. If you wanted to prove a plane hit the Pentagon, you would need to look at the footage from the Sheridan. The same thing goes if you wanted to prove a missile hit the building. So, why doesn't the government release the right footage? Why don't they release the footage that actually captures what really happened? Is it because something is on those tapes that they don't want us to see? Why can't we see them? If there's nothing to hide, then why hide it.

[JCB]

Originally Posted by socco

You can see something on the right side in the first picture.

I don't see anything. I've paused it over and over again and nothing is present.

EDIT: Nevermind. I see it now. It's white, and you can actually see it advance in the second frame as well.

[L]

Another conspiracy theory....If the government is behind this, then why did they blow up the pentagon?

[kconn61686]

what was their dipiction??

ive seen many 3D computerized graphics that show the the floor of the tower that was hit first- the fuel burned the floor so that it basically dipped real low, then collapsed. after that floor, i believe it was 82nd, collapsed, it created a domino effect breaking thru each level one by one untill it eventually collapsed through the middle.

[Jizzy]

Someone explain to me the Osama Bin Laden video? That's really a selling point for his argument. Did the government make that video up?