9/11 Tape to be Released

Roduga · 16 May 2006 at 19:17

Atomic said:
Apparantly the video camera on the highway wasn't working, and the ones confiscated at the gas station and hotels didn't capture the impact (yet tha tfootage hasn't been released).

Also the Pentagon only has it would appear video camera that record every half second. So pretty much the place that should be one of the most secure places in the world has crappy cameras. Even the damn media companies have better cameras than at the Pentagon. SO pretty much the U.S can have stealth planes, put man in to space and have some awesom emilitary tech, but yet still has crappy cameras. Hmmm...

Why do they need faster cameras?

cheets64 · 16 May 2006 at 19:17

nikebee said:
*smacks head on table*

links please

There is no link, FOX news, CNN nothing, only seen it on Sky News.

Sky didnt focus on the story for long, the expert and newsreader werent really bothered about it/

Inquisitor · 16 May 2006 at 19:18

Enfield said:
Can someone explain why the times are ****** up in those stills?

In one frame it says 17:37:19 and there is no fireball but in the other one which is also 17:37:19 there is a fireball...

Explosions happen rather quickly

William · 16 May 2006 at 19:19

Mulder said:
Is it not obvious why they can't release it?

If they wanted false footage to release they could have had it ready prepared to release on the day. The reason that it was being held as courtroom evidence certainly seems valid to me.

nikebee · 16 May 2006 at 19:19

cheets64 said:
There is no link, FOX news, CNN nothing, only seen it on Sky News.

Sky didnt focus on the story for long, the expert and newsreader werent really bothered about it/

aah right... thanks for clearing that up... i'll stop moaning now

Meeko · 16 May 2006 at 19:19

Inquisitor said:
Explosions happen rather quickly

They don't defy the basic rules of time tho... :confused:

EDIT : Ignore me... just realised the pics aren't in any sort of order on that image...

Atomic · 16 May 2006 at 19:20

Roduga said:
Why do they need faster cameras?

So that they can record objects hitting the pentagon. Had this been a missile it would be worthwile having video footage of it for various reasons. If the Pentagon lacks *** abilites to record a aircraft, then it wont be able to record a missile.

I would have thought a place like the Pentagon would have some of the most impressive security in this world, but turns out my local Netto is more secure than Pentagon.

Rich_L · 16 May 2006 at 19:21

The only thing that'll shut people up is evidence, like undoctored video footage.

Pray tell how the government would go about convincing the conspiracy skeptics that anything they released was undoctored?

dunker · 16 May 2006 at 19:21

sept 12th ??

well the actual fireball does look similar to the other plane explosions.

MookJong · 16 May 2006 at 19:24

I really hope this stops the missile nonsence and people start looking at what really happened with the wargames running that moring.

Zip · 16 May 2006 at 19:24

Atomic said:
So that they can record objects hitting the pentagon. Had this been a missile it would be worthwile having video footage of it for various reasons. If the Pentagon lacks *** abilites to record a aircraft, then it wont be able to record a missile.

I would have thought a place like the Pentagon would have some of the most impressive security in this world, but turns out my local Netto is more secure than Pentagon.

If there was a missle strike those cameras probably wouldnt be standing there for long anyway.
And it would probably be like trying to record a bullet from a gun. The only way they could do it is if they used Exra slow mo cameras that run at about 15000 frames a second or something stupidly fast like that

cheets64 · 16 May 2006 at 19:27

MookJong said:
I really hope this stops the missile nonsence and people start looking at what really happened with the wargames running that moring.

The video has not proved anything at all.

Enfield · 16 May 2006 at 19:27

Zip said:
If there was a missle strike those cameras probably wouldnt be standing there for long anyway.

And why is that?

ballistic · 16 May 2006 at 19:29

yes so this was a missile, i mean of course - the terrorists had f16's at their disposal and that plane carrying over 50 people just vanished into thin air. Hey what about if the terrorists managed to convert the plane into a ballistic missile using gold dust, there's a conspiracy for you

Zip · 16 May 2006 at 19:29

Enfield said:
And why is that?

To take out the more secure part of pentagon it would require a pretty big explosive missile to penetrate the inner walls.
And if that happened the cameras would probably be taken out from all the shrapnel

cheets64 · 16 May 2006 at 19:30

Hmm BBC just said its NOT been released so what the hell did I see on sky

Zip · 16 May 2006 at 19:30

cheets64 said:
Hmm BBC just said its NOT been released so what the hell did I see on sky

The old footage?

Atomic · 16 May 2006 at 19:31

Enfield said:
And why is that?

If there is a missile strike on the Pentagon then the surrounding cameras would still be there. Only if the Pentagon is carpet bombed, nuked or has many bombs droped on it would there be a chance of footage being destroyed. Even then it could be beamed back live to a seperate location for archiving.

If a single missile like a cruise missile hits the pentagon then security cameras around the area could survive.

zain · 16 May 2006 at 19:31

fatiain said:
It's taken them 5 years to photoshop every single frame.

</conspiracy bobbins>

Yup and they will make it look so real people will believe it ^^

ballistic · 16 May 2006 at 19:32

cheets64 said:
Hmm BBC just said its NOT been released