watch a little bit of this video and let me know what you think

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...F11+conspiracy

 

Now, there have been videos around since post 9/11 that questions the damage of the Pentagon from what type of plane, if plane at all, actually hit that building. As far surveillance camera footage, word is that the FBI collected all surveilance footage that could have captured the Pentagon attack with a mile radius immediately after the attack. I never thought twice about the damage since I always thought the Pentagon was some really massive heavy concrete building until I actually looked up the dimensions and then something got really fishy. Then when I looked into it further and compared it to other photos such as the one that crashed down in Penn., I had one major question. Where in the world was the plane pieces? Even with the towers you clearly see building and plane pieces falling out the sky. (10 min into the film.)

On the other hand, there was four confirmed planes hijacked, so with the popular story, they rae all acounted for. Then if a plane didn't hit the Pentagon, then where is that fourth plane? Was it even a 747? Maybe it was one of them smaller commuter planes that is commonly used for short national trips. Then again, there still would of been plane pieces. Only thing that could make a hole that sized with no pieces left over is something like a missile but...where would have the missile have come from? And if fired, there is a slim chance a missile be able to travel that great distance and no one notice. And that leave the other question, so where did the fourth plane go to?
All in all I sat something don't add up and there is seem to be something hidden that the government knows that we, the average citizen don't.
Look, I know history always shows that the truth always come out eventually. But then again, conspiracy theories, as mentioned in the video, happens and shows up after any major event. But the truth always come out, and I'm looking forward to it.

 

I have a feeling that plane 4 got shot down over teh atlantic and the debris was picked up by the navy. all top secret. A SAM (surface to air missile) or bunker buster missiles are boththe same size of a small commuter plane, and could have winows painted on easily, they also have iwngs like one as well

 

Okay. I watched your video. You want to know what I think?

I think it's rubbish. The perpetrator of the prap knows a lot more about about the science of persuasion than he does about any actual science.

I'm not going to sit here and refute each of his points, item by item, but I'll toss out a couple of speculations of my own, and be honest enough to name them as such.

1) As to "no video clearly shows a plane hitting the pentagon, etc"....

Go and examine any typical surveillance camera system. They take a series of still frames, often spaced at about 1 frame every 10 seconds, and then store them. This is why the perp on the evening news who held up the liquor store moves herky jerky; it's stop action. Only the liquor hold up takes 2 minutes to pull off, and you get 12 or so snaps of it happening. Now planes are not thugs, they travel at speeds up to 600 mph, with landing speeds above 100 mph. Let's pick a number off of the top of our heads and say that a plane is going 300 mph. Conversion factor of 88 ft/s means that our guesstimate plane is moving 26,400 ft per second. Now say your surveillance camera is poorly positioned, not where it is close enough to see faces (say with maybe a 30ft span), but far enough back so that it has a side-to-side span of 100 yards, or approximatly 300 ft. You'd need 88 surveilance cameras, side by side, each covering 300 ft, to have a chance of seeing a plane flying past them at 300 mph. And if those cameras are set to snap one frame every ten seconds, you'd have an additional 1 in 10 odds of each camera being timed right to catch the plane.

As for "the gas station surveillance camera was confiscated", gimmee a break. I'd hope so. Somebody just attacked one of the most sensitve military sites in our nation and I'd expect they'd like to see every possible piece of evidence as to what/who it was and why. Complacency, of ignoring the gas station camera, or doing something like just making a copy of it, should never be part of how our military and security do business.

2) As for the "16 ft hole". I looked at his pictures. I saw a 6' tall firefighter standing in front of a building that was missing a 50' gap in it's front. No, the gap was not "clean" or "total"; looked to me like something hit it at an angle (much like the planes that hit the World Trade buildings), or maybe even splashed on the ground and then bounced up into the building. It's easy for this joker to say "the impact damage is not consistent with what we'd expect from a 757!", but the fact of the matter is the engineering world at large has very little imperical evidence to go on when it comes to guessing what it would look like after a plane hits a building. You can run all of the equations you want to, but they're all based upon assumptions and approximations, and reality will more often than not make a fool of your predictions and expectations. The facts are that the vast majority of large plane crashes do not impact buildings; the pilots do what they can to save lives on the ground as well as on board. We definitly have zippo past record to go on when it comes to planes impacting hardened structures like the pentagon.

3) We've seen no plane parts lying on the ground in front of the hole, and no one's shown us footage of plane parts inside the building. As if there were tail sections sitting on the ground next to the World Trade Centers. Dude, it's the Pentagon. You're not going to get video footage of what's inside, just to make your suspicous little mind rest at ease. Secrets come first, and you'd be the first to yell loudly should some innocent video end up giving away some unrelated national secret. A plane travelling at 300 miles per hour that hits a solid object (like the ground or a fortified building) is likely to end up inside the ground/building, and in very small pieces. Remember that plane that went down in the everglades and the shots of the crash site? Just a big black smear and fluttering pieces of insulation.

4) Why **** around with amature hour analyzing shoddy photos from converted low end video cameras? The FAA will have radar data showing the plane in question approaching the area of the pentagon and then dropping below radar coverage. You want to convince me a plane wasn't there? Show me the radar data that shows no plane was lost in that area that day, and I'll start believing.


Old science guideline called Occum's Razor: When presented with n alternatives, with no one jumping out as a clear winner, you'll be right more often than not by just picking the simplest one. In the case of 9/11, the simplest explaination is that a group of militant wackos took advantage of a fat and complacent country's unsecured airline system, to show their fellow fanatics that they live and have power, and can strike at their enemy through fear. Seems it's also possible that whether they intended it or not, they've also succeeded in instilling a cancerous doubt and suspicion as well.