Aaron russo on the 9-11 inside job

[Mechanicalsalvation]

@SLAAKMAN: the video footage appears to be playing at speed of 5-6 faster then regular time. Any idea why? Also whats the source of the video/how did it go public?

 

[Commodore]

Could you explain it yourself how do you understand the explanation on skeptoid or could you post another source explaning the problem? I cant make much of it. If the shape of the plane is distorted due to the camera lenses how come all the other objects in that view doesnt seem to be distorted?
At this point I have to go with my common sense which tells me that in that perspective where Pentagons outer walls are 23m high the incoming object indeed seems small for boeing 757 which is normally 56m long with wingspan of 38m.

Also do you have some source explaining how could such a maneuvre could be pulled of? becouse I am reading its actually impossible trajectory for this kind of plane.

Thanx

Edit: Not sure if this is the same picture as is written about on skeptoid since there is NO picture or video presentation there

Obviously you didn't read the entire explanation from the link I posted as they answer all of the questions you just asked.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Obviously you didn't read the entire explanation from the link I posted as they answer all of the questions you just asked.

O.K. I have read it for second time. Its now clear to me it talks about different camera view then the one posted here.
However if you think it offers satisfactory explanations then perhaps its you who didnt read it in whole. There is no scientific explanation there regarding the fly path - only a rhetorical exercise.
Its fine if you are unwilling to engage in detailed discussion just do not call me "too irrational to see how wrong you are on the matter", mkay?

 

[Commodore]

O.K. I have read it for second time. Its now clear to me it talks about different camera view then the one posted here.
However if you think it offers satisfactory explanations then perhaps its you who didnt read it in whole. There is no scientific explanation there only a rhetorical exercise.
Its fine if you are unwilling to engage in detailed discussion just do not call me "too irrational to see how wrong you are on the matter", mkay?

No, it is talking about that exact angle as that footage is the only angle which actually shows anything hitting the Pentagon.

In fact, it says that right in the first sentence of the "Myth #1" section, so I'm starting to think you are lying to me when you said you read it again.

Of the 85 video tapes seized by the FBI that may have shown the plane strike the building, only one actually shows the impact of an object with the building. This is a Pentagon security camera pointed at a traffic gate along an access driveway.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Sorry, I have just edited my post. So according to you here presented video is fake? Styl skeptoid doesnt bring any justification for the fly path of the airplain which seems to be a physical impossibility. That certainly is not satisfactory. Asking about the details of such a maneuvre is very rational thing to do.

 

[SLAAKMAN]

@SLAAKMAN: the video footage appears to be playing at speed of 5-6 faster then regular time. Any idea why? Also whats the source of the video/how did it go public?

Im not certain what its origin is from except it might be a satellite video? I remember a rumor it couldve leaked out from NASA or some military source but that has not been verified.

 

[Commodore]

Sorry, I have just edited my post. So according to you here presented video is fake? Styl skeptoid doesnt bring any justification for the fly path of the airplain which seems to be a physical impossibility. That certainly is not satisfactory. Asking about the details of such a maneuvre is very rational thing to do.

Okay, this is the last time I'm going to do your legwork for you:

When the hijackers brought the plane to the Pentagon, they were still too high, so they flew in a circle to drop the altitude. A Dulles air traffic controller, Danielle O'Brien, said "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe." Conspiracy theorists often cite this comment as evidence that the controllers knew it was not a 757.

But this interpretation is only possible if you ignore the rest of what she said. O'Brien has been very clear that there's no question it was the 757, and that unsafe doesn't mean impossible. "It was never the intent of the hijacker to safely land American flight 77 anywhere," she said, and also correctly pointed out that unlike an airliner, a missile does not need to circle to lose altitude.

And if that's not good enough for you:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Calibration%20of%20altimeter_92.pdf

There comes a time in your life when you have to put on your big boy pants and do your own research so I'm not going to point out for you where to read to get the relevant information. You are just going to have to read the entire document and find it for yourself.

EDIT: And this one too:

http://www.ntsb.gov/about/Documents/Flight_Path_Study_AA77.pdf

But hey, that info came from a government site, so I bet it's all just lies right?

 

[SLAAKMAN]

Agent327,
Perhaps check the OP?
(FWIW, youtube vids aren't quite reliable sources. Except for conspiracy theorists, that is. There's a whole section of those on youtube.)
So far there's 9 pages of discussion of this supposed inside job. What new information (besides multiple security organizations bugging up, but that's old news) is there to be had that hasn't been publicized yet?

I like the way you put that first sentence but remember its a fallacy to assert that if its a video posted on the net then its automatically false. Also as I pointed out on page 8 that our language has been deeply subverted as Orwell warned long ago so words such as "conspiracy" have had their meaning distorted. To answer the question regarding new information, I havent even brought out the heavy artillery yet. (It would take some time to deploy several dozen gigabytes of data here).

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

But hey, that info came from a government site, so I bet it's all just lies right?

I cant judge it right now but yes I wanted better source then skeptoid since they dont even properly discuss the maneuvre there. To say that "landing safely the plane was never the intent" isnt the same like hitting the side of the building the way it supposedly did. Do you see my rationale? Anyway thanks for your effort.

 

[Commodore]

I cant judge it right now but yes I wanted better source then skeptoid since they dont even properly discuss the maneuvre there. To say that "landing safely the plane was never the intent" isnt the same like hitting the side of the building the way it supposedly did. Do you see my rationale? Anyway thanks for your effort.

I just gave you two other sources. One of which was used by the skeptoid article I linked, which shows they actually did do their research on the matter and just aren't dismissing the conspiracy theories for no reason.

 

[warpus]

If you analyze Superman's landing trajectory from the movies and compare it to the flight of the "757" that hit the pentagon, you'll see that I am right, if you factor in a couple shots of vodka before takeoff. But of course nobody wants to talk about the truth because they are too afraid to face it.

By the way, did you know that Superman can melt steel? Easily? Whenever he wants?

 

[sophie]

If you analyze Superman's landing trajectory from the movies and compare it to the flight of the "757" that hit the pentagon, you'll see that I am right, if you factor in a couple shots of vodka before takeoff. But of course nobody wants to talk about the truth because they are too afraid to face it.

By the way, did you know that Superman can melt steel? Easily? Whenever he wants?

Superman's advanced metabolism would have processed the alcohol in the vodka long before the impact though.

SO HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT, HUH?

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I just gave you two other sources. One of which was used by the skeptoid article I linked, which shows they actually did do their research on the matter and just aren't dismissing the conspiracy theories for no reason.

Do you have an opinion on the video link SLAAKMAN posted page or two ago which discusses the very thing? Or do you dismiss it right away just becouse these arnt official/ government supplied calculations?

 

[warpus]

Superman's advanced metabolism would have processed the alcohol in the vodka long before the impact though.

SO HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT, HUH?

I have no idea if this is true or not, but I've heard that his drinking problems have reached a level where he's constantly hooked up to a vodka IV, 24/7.

Given what we know about 9/11 I am going to assume that this is true.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Superman's advanced metabolism would have processed the alcohol in the vodka long before the impact though.

SO HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT, HUH?

Supermans metabolism is actually producing alcohol and many other drugs intoxicating the body with it. Hence the superpowers. The official truth was falsified to family friendly story by FBI to keep the public from getting these superpowers.

 

[SLAAKMAN]

So much for bureaucrat rationales & subterfuge-

G FORCES

Link to video.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I have no idea if this is true or not, but I've heard that his drinking problems have reached a level where he's constantly hooked up to a vodka IV, 24/7.

Given what we know about 9/11 I am going to assume that this is true.

That sounds very superpowerous. I bet you had whole bottle of vodka yourself.

 

[SLAAKMAN]

The 9-11 Commission disbelieved the official story so why do you accept it?


Link to video.

 

[warpus]

Of course they didn't get everything right, lots of people died. People messed up and due to the nature of your corrupt government you'll probably never find out how or why until 40 years from now.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

@ SLAAKMAN excelent video

@ Warpus 40 years? We dont even know truth about JFK!