It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Still Think the World is Waking up to the Conspiracy?

page: 31
14
<< 28  29  30    32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 03:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deveron
And not one caught an airplane hitting the Pentagon!! NOT ONE!!


Wrong again, one on the Pentagon did....
Just why do you expect a service station camera to be filming another building?
Why do you expect a traffic camera to be filming a building?
Why do you expect a hotel camera to be filming another building?
Why do you think a building security camera will be filming another building?




posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 07:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Deveron



And not one caught an airplane hitting the Pentagon!! NOT ONE!!

Even today, with all the cell phone cameras, how many airplane crashes are caught on camera?



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 08:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Deveron



And not one caught an airplane hitting the Pentagon!! NOT ONE!!

Even today, with all the cell phone cameras, how many airplane crashes are caught on camera?



Yes you are right. Tell hellobruce will you! As he seems to think one camera filmed an aeroplane hitting the Pentagon.

I never saw an aeroplane hit the Pentagon.

Please have give me a source link hellobruce!



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Deveron You were given a link to an analysis of the gate camera on the last page. Did you skip it?



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Deveron

Well, at least 2 that I'm aware of did catch a flying object. Trouble is, it was NOT a 757--much too small for that aircraft.



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 09:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Salander


No, I have researched the facts that say only TWO cellphone calls were made from Flight 93, and allBOTH of those were made at a time where the airliner was less than 5,000 feet AND in the vicinity of cell towers that were 1. on ridgelines and well within a couple thousand feet of the airliner and 2. were RURAL towers which have a much farther range than urban towers. Both calls cut off when the airliner ascended. Every other call, was made from a seatback Airfone.

Flight 77, every successful call, came from an Airfone.



And that is a load of Rubbish. There were no back seat phones on that aircraft! That story was rejected by American Airlines, The Pentagon and the FBI.....

Officials Deny Calls Made from Flight 77



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Deveron




And that is a load of Rubbish. There were no back seat phones on that aircraft! That story was rejected by American Airlines, The Pentagon and the FBI.....

Officials Deny Calls Made from Flight 77

Your link seems to be bad.

But here is a review of 'globalresearch' in general.



While many of Globalresearch's articles discuss legitimate humanitarian or environmental concerns, the site has a strong undercurrent of reality warping throughout its pages, especially in relation to taking its news from sources such as Russia Today. Its view of science, the economy and geopolitics seems to be broadly conspiracist.

Whenever someone makes a remarkable claim and cites Globalresearch, they are almost certainly wrong.



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Deveron Anytime you see the name David Ray Griffin, it is safe to assume you are reading fiction. Especially when it comes to the phone calls. You see after the FBI said no calls from Barbra's cellphone connected, they testified that someone made several calls from an Airfone TO the Solicitor General's office (Ted Olson). They further testified, based on the testimony from DOJ employees who answered said calls, that it was Barbra Olson who made the calls.



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 11:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: lexyghot

Put your money where your mouth is--how do YOU know exactly how the cameras were set up?

You don't, and we both know it.

Your entire argument is based upon "maybe this" or "maybe that", when all the facts work against you.



Your claim that they haven't released all the tapes REQUIRES you to be right about the number of cameras, where they were placed, how they were oriented, and that they were indeed recorded.

Let's start with you presenting that evidence.



posted on Dec, 11 2014 @ 07:56 AM
link   
a reply to: lexyghot

Well, if you think those tapes exist, perhaps you could show them to me?

How can I show you something that to the public does not exist?

Show me one of those released tapes that show a 757 at low level across the front yard.



posted on Dec, 11 2014 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

You have been shown one. You refuse to accept it.



posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Hello! The tape DOES NOT SHOW a 757, yet you claim there was one there. Holy Moly!




posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

And yet again, I point out that you were given a link that analyzed the video and showed the fleeting glimpse of Flight 77. Which, you continue to ignore.



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Apparently unlike yourself, I am capable of analyzing the video myself. It appears you need somebody else to analyze the video for you, and then tell you what it means.

I'm independent, and I do my own interpreting and my own thinking.




posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander



Apparently unlike yourself, I am capable of analyzing the video myself. It appears you need somebody else to analyze the video for you, and then tell you what it means.

I'm independent, and I do my own interpreting and my own thinking.

So you are an expert analyst ?
Please do show us your credentials.

We have far too many internet experts on here who 'claim' to be able to analyze Youtube videos.

Based on your 'expertise' , what is the height of the object shown in the Pentagon video?
And how did you determine this?



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 03:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander

Well, if you think those tapes exist, perhaps you could show them to me?


I don't, and that's my point.

However, your claim of missing and/or withheld from the public tapes requires that they do.


How can I show you something that to the public does not exist?


So then you admit that you have no evidence that those tapes exist, and yet continue to claim that they do.

That makes your belief nothing but faith based, and not based on anything else. You've been asked to show where all these supposed cameras were located on the exterior of the Pentagon, but so far have refused to put in the effort to show us all. Why is that? Are you afraid that putting in the work will show your faith in your claim to be wrong?


Show me one of those released tapes that show a 757 at low level across the front yard.



There are 2 blurry ones. That's all.

Your claim is that there should be multiple recordings of it. You cannot show this to have any basis in fact.

However, I am aware of several lines of evidence that converge on the fact that a 757 hit the Pentagon. I do not rely on just one. However, it seems that only ONE will satisfy you, and choose to ignore the others.
edit on 15-12-2014 by lexyghot because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: samkent

Nope, I'm not an expert analyst. Not at all.

But I know enough about airplanes and crashes that I can study what we've been shown and reach my own conclusions.

Just enough common sense to read books and magazines, digest what was written, and form my own conclusions. I don't need some expert to tell me how to think, but I am ALWAYS happy to read the work of experts. Most informative, but in the end I do my own thinking.



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: lexyghot

I am working on the assumption that the numerous cameras in plain view at the Pentagon were in fact functional on that day.

Yes, it's entirely possible they were NOT functional that day. But that is not likely, considering the facility. Unless, of course, someone there deliberately turned them off so that somebody could claim "Aw heck, our surveillance cameras were not working that day." So far, nobody has made that claim, at least that I'm aware of. How about you?

Odds are the cameras were functional. This was the Pentagon, not the HQ of Boy Scouts Of America, you know what I mean?

And assuming they were functional, they would have clearly shown any targets crossing the yard. And if a 757 had flown across it would have been recorded, and the brass would have taken those tapes to thee 911 Commission to prove its story.

But they did not, because the tapes would not have shown a 757. Like the other 2 cameras, it would have shown a small and fast aircraft streaking towards the building, NOT a 757.



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 12:20 PM
link   
You continue to cling to this fantasy that there was a state of the art camera system at the Pentagon, despite all the evidence? Why is that?
edit on 19-12-2014 by cardinalfan0596 because: getting used to new tablet



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander



And assuming they were functional, they would have clearly shown any targets crossing the yard. And if a 757 had flown across it would have been recorded, and the brass would have taken those tapes to thee 911 Commission to prove its story.

That is one assumption too far.
Back in the day not all cameras were recorded.
Back in the day recorders were essentially modified VCR's. Big and limited on inputs.

In my minds viewpoint they would have 1 maybe 2 cameras at each doorway to the building.
But were they recorded????

How many times have we discovered that high tech filters down throught the government at a snails pace?
Haven't you heard the stories of antique computers and software being main line devices?



new topics




 
14
<< 28  29  30    32  33 >>

log in

join