• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Double Tree Video Released?

I was only looking at what's visible below the overpass, not above. I give up.
 
Kent1 said:
I think we are looking at different things. Also it does help to get a higher rez version. The possible tail is dark and blurry behind the white. The "tail" dips below, before the impact.
Click to expand...
Ok, I've requesting the mpeg from Flight77. Thanks for that hookup.
 
Hierosis said:
Exactly. And it seemed very convenient that there was an Anthrax scare (hardly reported, but look it up) shortly after he said this at Senator Dayton's office. Which may or may not have helped finalize his decision not to seek a second term as he was rather popular in his home state among voters.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Dayton closed his office in October 2004 until after the elections based on a supposed briefing by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, but was the only member of Congress to do so and took quite a bit of criticism for his actions. He was considered vulnerable before that and his approval ratings declined substantially thereafter. Dayton was called "The Blunderer" in April of this year by Time Magazine, which rated him as one of the five worst Senators. He decided not to run for a second term as he was considered unlikely to win (although he might have hung on given the Democrats' general level of success last month).
 
Last edited:
Kent1 said:
The possible tail is dark and blurry behind the white. The "tail" dips below, before the impact. (But again I'm not certain)
Click to expand...

At the moment, I'm down the street from the Doubletree. It's dark and I don't have my camera along, but went by there again. I think the vantage point from the Doubletree is too poor and far away.

I think the dark and blurry blob continues along the highway. Though, a look at the higher resolution version would help.
 
I know none of us buy the fake tree crap! This pic blows a hole right through it. I don't wanna post this pic, too big. It is archived here.
http://www.webcitation.org/5KsH1eIkK

I see trees. This pic still shows Pentagon torn up, so that dates it.

ETA: funny part is this is a twoofer discovery, yet they can't see the forest...
Classic!

DT
 
Where's the bad ass tree from the Doubletree Hotel video?
Click to expand...

And what is a tree but an overgrown bush? And if that doesn't prove, um, uh, whatever - my brain hurts when I try to think like a conspiracist.

On another forum, a CTer asked why there are so many good pictures of plane #2 hitting the WTC while there are only a couple of blurry inconclusive ones of the Pentagon? So that proves it was a missle! Where did they expect all the cameras in the major media hub of the US to be when the largest building in the largest city on the continent was in flames - as opposed to some random parking lot surveillance cameras several hundred miles away?
 
Probably nothing.
 

Attachments

  • Image10.jpg
    Image10.jpg
    54.3 KB · Views: 16
  • Image11.jpg
    Image11.jpg
    22.1 KB · Views: 149
I dunno, but its clearly not in the previous or the next frame.

It just pops up right before the impact. Do you think it could be the tail? The angle doesn't seem right to me.
 
Last edited:
Cars? Clearly you haven't done your homework.

OS%20Nessie%20small.gif
 
Dazed said:
"the govt admitted having 84 other recordings related flight 77, but since none of the 84 show the "impact", we had to file a second FOIA request for those recordings. that FOIA request was denied, and we've since filed an appeal."



5 years later we get /2/ of those 84 videos. Sounds like they're locked up in secret to me.

ETA: And this is because the FBI was forced against their will by a court order to release them, and they still stalled past the date of Nov. 9th given by the court for the release.
Click to expand...

Question.

How could it be a secret if you KNOW they're locked up?
 
Because the people who originally possessed the tapes told journalists that they were confiscated. Eg, the citgo manager, the doubletree employees.

Had they not, how would we know about them?

Just for the record, reading my other comments should make it obvious that I'm not trying to say this is evidence of a conspiracy. I'm just saying it enables CTs to carry on with this no-plane nonsense.
 
Last edited:
gumboot said:
The Pentagon gatehouse camera footage may not have shown a flyover, even had it occured. As I calculated, the aircraft would have crossed the entire expanse of the frame in one second, and the camera was only taking one frame a second. It was lucky that the camera caught the aircraft at all.

In contrast, the Doubleday footage appears to be operating at a much higher frame rate. As such, this camera would CERTAINLY catch anything flying low above The Pentagon.
Click to expand...

Following up on the feeling some folks have that that white shape in the Doubletree footage is the tail of AA77... you wouldn't happen to know how to calculate just how big a 757's tail at however many km from the camera would look that really was it, would you? I also kind of felt like that fast-moving object could be part of the plane, but on the other hand I have a gut feeling that a plane's tail that far away, even on a fairly large jet, would look a lot smaller than that. I have no idea how to calculate this so I could be completely wrong though.

ETA: I'm talking about the blur visible above the road, which might just as well be a fast-moving truck or some such, not the eerie blip visible at the underpass at 0:01 to 0:02 that snagswolf pointed out. Like some others, though, I don't think it would have been possible to see all the way to the other side of the underpass from the camera's viewing angle.
 
Last edited:
tacodaemon said:
Following up on the feeling some folks have that that white shape in the Doubletree footage is the tail of AA77... you wouldn't happen to know how to calculate just how big a 757's tail at however many km from the camera would look that really was it, would you?
Click to expand...


It could be done in theory, or at least to a ballpark. Basically, you need to determine the location of the camera and the white object. Using the angle of view of the camera, you can then determine the physical measurement across the width/height of the frame at the distance where the aircraft allegedly appears. The dimensions of the "tail" can then be converted to a physical measurement as a percentage of the frame.

It won't be super accurate, but you could get a ball-park.

-Gumboot
 
You guys should ask Killtown. He's plenty good at photo analysis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom