Comments Posted By Roger Smith
Displaying 1 To 7 Of 7 Comments


Regardless, the camera issues are well documented here

- 84 tapes were seized by the FBI

- 13 only had footage of the crash site

- 12 only show footage AFTER the crash (strangely convenient)

- The gas station across the street had cameras pointing at the Pentagon and the supposed plane flew over the gas station.

These are legitimate questions and concerns.

Comment Posted By Roger Smith On 22.08.2007 @ 17:12

"Simple. The frame rate of the security camera was around one frame per second, and the plane was moving at over 700 feet per second. So the camera would have had to have taken a frame at the exact moment the plane was in front of it to get a useable shot, but it unfortunatly didn’t.

They aren’t releasing a video showing one because one doesn’t exist. The only reason we have so many of the second WTC is because so many cameras were already shooting the other tower."

Do honestly believe that the defense headquarters of the greatest superpower in the world only had one camera capture a plane crashing into it? Honestly? Moreover, they had no real time/normal frame rate cameras anywhere to record anything? Your local retailers have real time cameras.

I keep watching the video, and in the first frame the object looks nothing like a 757. If the plane was moving as fast as it did, why did it create such a small hole (not the ensuing collapse of the area)? And how did the "landing gear" penetrate two more of the rings around the Pentagon and burst out the other side when the plane didn't even penetrate through the whole first ring?

Why are WE the conspiracy theorists when these basic mysteries don't add up?

Comment Posted By Roger Smith On 22.08.2007 @ 16:13

Also, could someone please explain why you can't see an airliner in the Pentagon video? In the first frame I see a small contrail that looks like that of one that a missle would leave. Some say the plane is traveling too fast to see it. Well if you can see a contrail in the first frame, you should also see building damage in the first frame (because it's supposedly traveling too fast for the camera)..which there is none of.

All this could be cleared up if they would just release the other videos that supposedly show the plane hitting the Pentagon. Why won't they?

Instead of arguing back and forth, let's answer this simple question. Why can't I see a plane in the video and why won't they release a video showing one?

Comment Posted By Roger Smith On 22.08.2007 @ 13:37

Someone please explain how NIST can't even bring the towers down with 16 of their own models...

"NIST created 16 separate physics programs to simulate the WTC 1 & 2 collapses and only got 1 to collapse partially. Torin adds, “When they did, [in the computer model] they removed 40% of the structural support.” The cross trusses that the towers received a significant amount of their strength from had to be removed to have a collapse in the computer simulation."

Comment Posted By Roger Smith On 22.08.2007 @ 13:15

I messed up the link above, correction:

Comment Posted By Roger Smith On 21.08.2007 @ 18:06

By the way, it is Jones' brief reaction the day after and simply highlights certain points of the program. Detailed rebuttal’s are on their way.

Quick note: Bill Doyle heads the largest 9/11 Families group. Over HALF of them are demanding a new investigation and believe the government is complicit in a cover-up. The argument "ohh bringing up 9/11 conspiracies is hurtful to the victims families" is a bogus argument and a disgrace to those that are demanding a new investigation.

So when the media labels "Truthers" as crazies and nuts, they're putting many of the 9/11 family members that don't believe the official story into the same category and should be ashamed of themselves. Only the scum of the earth would use and manipulate the names of the family members to propel their propaganda.

Comment Posted By Roger Smith On 21.08.2007 @ 18:02

If you all are so unwaivering in your opinions towards "Truthers"..I CHALLENGE you to listen to this mp3 and not come out of it without questions about the History Channel's intentions and integrity. It is Alex Jones explaining how blatant and disgusting this propaganda hit-piece was. I DARE you to listen to this. It is only fair to have Alex's position be heard.

Comment Posted By Roger Smith On 21.08.2007 @ 16:51

Powered by WordPress



Pages (1) : [1]

«« Back To Stats Page