There’s no reaching some people. I found out recently that the far, far fringe of conspiracists claim that the Twin Towers were not hit by airplanes, in spite of an abundance of high-quality video of it happening (and thousands of people who couldn’t help noticing it at the time).
Well, so do I (she’s a property manager who was atop a highrise apartment building in Clarendon), but that’s not what the thread is about.
You just found this out recently?? Holy cow, you’re not paying attention! It’s been claimed for years (ever since 9/11, in fact) that the Twin Towers were actually demolished via internal explosive charges by our own government in order to justify going after Saddam Hussein.
As for the Pentagon, it’s also been believed that it was deliberately hit by a missle (by us, mind you) in order to justify the Iraq war. The thing about this video (which I haven’t seen) is that if it doesn’t clearly show the plane, it just feeds the conspiracy-heads: if the government’s telling the truth, then why doesn’t their own evidence vindicate them?
[sub]I’m not personally taking a side on the issue, just reporting what I’ve heard other people say.[/sub]
Yeah, and if there were actually high-quality videos of the event, the nut-jobs would, no doubt, say, “Well, why did the government have all that fancy video equipment ready then and there?” As mentioned above, there’s no reaching some people. Nut-jobs love the conspiracy theory itself. They don’t love the facts and couldn’t care less about the truth.
Probably the NavEx Citgo that was directly under the flight path.
Oh, don’t get me wrong, I agree with you. They will believe whatever they want, facts be damned. All I was saying was that if the government wants to prove that there was a plane, then releasing a video where no plane is visible is probably not helping to debunk their opposition, and only feeds the “coverup” mindset…which is a really strange thing to do, if there ISN’T a coverup.
On the other hand… 
Yeah, but most conspiracists don’t deny that the planes hit the buildings at all, only that the planes weren’t responsible for knocking the buildings down. What’s tricky is deciding wether that’s more or less stupid than the idea that no planes ever hit the building in the first place.
And why would it take 4 1/2 years to release a crap video that doesn’t prove or deny anything?
Remember, we’re talking about the Pentagon.
We got better videos off of a survelience camera recording a girl getting kidnapped behind a car wash in Florida. Wal Mart has better videos of the parking lots of all of their stores.
What’s wrong with this picture? It only feeds the conspiracy theorists.
Like I said in post #18 above, the camera was installed in a gate to the Pentagon parking lot to photograph drivers waiting at the gate. For all we know, it probably did that job very well. It wasn’t put there to record an airplane crashing into the building.
The video of the girl being kidnapped behind a car wash in Florida is actually no better. It too photographed at a low frames per second rate (the abduction occupies only 16 frames).
For whatever arcane reasons, the Powers That Be did not want this video released, either. It was released because the government lost a lawsuit filed under the Freedom Of Information Act. It is not as though the government chose this moment to reveal evidence of the “truth” of a plane hitting the Pentagon. Rather, they were compelled to release this video (probably knowing that it would feed more nutcase theories than it would quell, but unable to persuade the court to let them let it lie dormant).
With the Twin Towers, sure. The standard CT (if I may so abbreviate “conspiracy theory”) is that the planes did hit the towers, but they did so to hide the fact that the buildings were deliberately demolished by other means.
It’s the Pentagon that’s being claimed was not hit by a plane. The recent video in question does nothing to refute that, which is weird in its own right. If the point of the video was to shut the CT’s up, but it fails to prove them wrong, then the question gets asked, “What’s the point?”.
[sub]I should note that I’m not a CT-er myself (but then, I would say that, now wouldn’t I? It’s a conspiracy, I tells ya!), but I find it fascinating to watch the back-and-forth between them and their naysayers.[/sub]
Spartydog also has a point: if the video release is to quell the CTs, but it fails to do so, it is only going to feed them…which often happens…which makes curious people wonder (quite rightfully, IMO). I didn’t personally research this much, so don’t (as Levar Burton on “Reading Rainbow” would say) take MY word for it, but I remember when there was a big announcement about the claimed UFO crash at Roswell, NM a few years ago. The government finally “came clean” and declared, “THIS IS WHAT REALLY HAPPENED! END OF STORY.”
…And then it turned out that their story was false. What they claimed was really found didn’t actually exist at the time, so it couldn’t have been.
Yeah, good way to squash those who think you’re lying to them: lie to them.
They’ll never notice, right? THAT, as much as anything, is why there are CTs.
Several dozen eyewitness accounts from people inside the Pentagon, on the Pentagon grounds, on the freeway running by the Pentagon, and from surrounding buildings who saw the jet airplane hit the building.
Linkey no work. I knew it was a lie! There wasn’t a plane! 
Just kidding. But I would like to see the link if you have a working one.
Take the <br /> bit off the end…
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html
Grim
To take what happywaffle did further:
The plane was moving at more than 500 mph (cite). That’s 8.33 miles per minute, or 733 feet per second (given the very rough estimate of the speed from my cite, the precision I’ve used is ridiculous - but let’s say 725-750 feet per second).
A 757 is 125 feet in length (cite). So we’re talking about 5 plane lengths every second.
According to this guy, the security camera should have 20 ‘usable frames’ per second, whereas Popular Mechanics claims it in fact has 1 ‘frame’ per second.
I don’t know how big a field the video covers, but it sure looks less than 5 plane lengths - therefore you would either get 1 or 0 frames with the plane in it, depending on luck of the draw.
I do wonder (I have no doubt a 757 hijacked by terrorists flew into the pentagon) why there aren’t more videos, or why the pentagon cameras don’t have (or they didn’t release) a better ‘frame rate.’
Twin towers? What twin towers? So you see any twin towers in NY now? There were no twin towers! There were no planes! It was a set in a Holllywood studio! It was an animation in a computer! It was a Spielberg conspiracy! The twin towers myth was created by the Illuminati to make an excuse to take down Bush!
Sheesh. Everyone knows that!
I’m amazed that there are so many. After all, when something is this unexpected, how could you plan for it and set up high-quality, multiple cameras in advance, and for something happening so fast and unannounced, how could you expect local spectators/tourists to pick up and turn on a camera just in time?
As far as why the quality is low and the frame rate slow, it’s all about storage, m’friend. There has to be a compromise between storage space allocated (tape, disc, memory, whatever) and the need for quality, as those are mutually exclusive. To catch a burglar, not much motion capture is needed; to catch a plane, a lot is needed. But a burglar/criminal/vandal was more likely than a plane.
And can you imagine the hours of video stored with completely useless information, repetitive frames, nothing happening? But storage has to be allocated (and paid for) for that, too.
My expectation is based on it being the Pentagon, which may as well have a target painted on it (it’s not truly a great military target, I’ll grant, but still, you gotta figure you have your enemies).
Most convenience stores and banks recycle the storage (I think) - I’d expect higher quality video recycled every couple of days.
Pentagon attack eyewitnesses. See also the index on the left side of that page.
Um…what about it?