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 There should be Pentagon Video ?

page: 11
13
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 07:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: peacefulpete
The Pentagon's events were pretty self-evident that there was no plane there,


How do you explain the 757 engines found at the Pentagon?
How do you explain the damage done by a 757 sized aircraft to the Pentagon?
How do you explain the 757 wheel found at the Pentagon?
How do you explain the 757 undercarriage found at the Pentagon?
How do you explain the bodies and body parts from Flight 77 found at the Pentagon?
How do you explain the DNA from all the passengers and crew found at the pentagon?
How do you explain the luggage from flight 77 found at the Pentagon?

Or do you ignore them as they destroy your silly conspiracy theory?




posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 07:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
Are you one of those that feel there should be more than a couple still frames from the Pentagon?

You might want ot look at things from a different angle.
The "need" of such of such video.
When they installed the security camera system was recorded video of the lawns 'needed'?
We all know the gubment doesn't do things in the same way you or I would do.
Take airports for example:
77.2% of all business airplane accidents occur on airport property.
When was the last time you saw any video of a plane crash at any airport?
NEVER !
Why ? Because they don't have cameras !
The only video we ever see comes from cell phones.

And if you ask me they need them badly.
There were 298 runway incursions reported for the first quarter of 2014.
Not one video.
How many lawn incursions were there at the Pentagon during that time? Zero.

Now if they don't see the need for runway cameras today, why would they have seen the need for lawn cameras 13 years ago?


Worst opening argument ever made, OP. You write:

When was the last time you saw any video of a plane crash at any airport?
NEVER !


There are a HUGE number of videos of crash landings and crash take-offs and airplane mishaps from airports - take a gander:

Aircraft mishaps videos

Video after video of planes crashing, all caught on camera, and some of those videos came from some pretty remote locations. Now tell us again how the most secure city in the world and one of the most secure buildings in that city has NO video of the plane that hit it?



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 11:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: peacefulpete
The Pentagon's events were pretty self-evident that there was no plane there,


How do you explain the 757 engines found at the Pentagon?
How do you explain the damage done by a 757 sized aircraft to the Pentagon?
How do you explain the 757 wheel found at the Pentagon?
How do you explain the 757 undercarriage found at the Pentagon?
How do you explain the bodies and body parts from Flight 77 found at the Pentagon?
How do you explain the DNA from all the passengers and crew found at the pentagon?
How do you explain the luggage from flight 77 found at the Pentagon?

Or do you ignore them as they destroy your silly conspiracy theory?


Engines found at Pentagon: Source please? If they found engines there, it's news to me. Same for your questions of a wheel and undercarriage.

Because none of that stuff was actually found there. Same for body parts, there never were any at the Pentagon. Or DNA. Or luggage.

Sources please. Because you're definitely not going by the mainstream news media stories at the time. Which showed a hole in the wall and no significant wreckage. And it showed lines of Pentagon employees picking up the small debris by hand.

If your alleged items were there, then does that mean you think those employees were picking up... Fragments of body parts? Bone fragments?

"Oh there's a finger on the ground, I'll put it in my pocket, along with that tooth and other pieces of bloody body parts. Hey here's a piece of metal the size of a dime, it must be the undercarriage and I'll put that in my other pocket."



And I'm not "ignoring" anything, I just responded to everything you said.

Re: "silly" conspiracy theory: The OS is the "silliest" conspiracy theory of all. As we all know.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 12:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: peacefulpete
And I'm not "ignoring" anything, I just responded to everything you said.


the pictures have been pasted here and elsewhere many many times before, why ignore them? Or is it you do not want to see them?

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.rense.com...
911research.wtc7.net...
usatoday30.usatoday.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Then there is the evidence from the Moussaoui trial www.vaed.uscourts.gov...

There are more if you want to look....



edit on 19-3-2015 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: danleonida
a reply to: samkent

Hi samkent,

It is my first post here, but a veteran 911 'researcher'.

mybroadband.co.za...

The Pentagon DID RELEASE a video from their CCTV in the parking lot. I saw it in a documentary and it was HILARIOUS! I'll describe it:

A corner of the building on the left. A liftgate in the centre. After a few seconds, an invisible object flys across the screen and The Pentagon ends up as not even a POLYGON!! ;o) Oh well... Almoast!

Does anyone remember the video?

I'll get back later when I have more time and let all know what was sooo... hilarious about it.

I'm veri courious about this forum opinion of my offshore posts! MyBB.co.za is in South Africa and I ended up out there after being banned in San Diego, Switzerlan, Germany, etc.

c u soon -dan


How come EVERYONE on this forum is ignoring my very first post above???

Please help because I can only think of ONE AND ONLY ONE REASON: This forum is a decoy.gov!!! Please prove me wrong!!

c u -dan



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: peacefulpete
And I'm not "ignoring" anything, I just responded to everything you said.


the pictures have been pasted here and elsewhere many many times before, why ignore them? Or is it you do not want to see them?

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.rense.com...
911research.wtc7.net...
usatoday30.usatoday.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Then there is the evidence from the Moussaoui trial www.vaed.uscourts.gov...

There are more if you want to look....




Look, I was never "ignoring" anything. What I said was that the debris you described, was not featured in the mainstream media at the time, as far as I know. And I asked you for sources. This is the opposite of ignoring the topic.

Thank you for the sources but I actually don't have the time right now to go through them all. I will tonight most likely.

I did read the USA Today article:

usatoday30.usatoday.com...

^I have to say that I've never heard of any of that stuff before reading that article just now. It says there were full-body corpses found AT THE PENTAGON.

That alone is completely inconsistent with all the mainstream media I've ever seen. I saw lines of Pentagon employees picking up small handfuls of the "wreckage" which sure as hell didn't include full body corpses.

Note that there are NO PHOTOS of any such wreckage in the article. Just one pic of the damaged wall with no visible plane wreckage lol.

Also note that that article is from 9-13-01, just two days after the 9-11 attacks.

As the article is inconsistent with all mainstream news I've ever seen, I have to think the article is nonsense. It seems an alternate history in that article (with lots of debris at the Pentagon), but that version of events was apparently dropped soon, when it was entirely obvious that no sizable wreckage was ever there.

So early on, the official story was not entirely decided yet, apparently.

What do you think of this extremely early article's inconsistencies with the vast majority of mainstream media???




posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: danleonida

originally posted by: danleonida
a reply to: samkent

Hi samkent,

It is my first post here, but a veteran 911 'researcher'.

mybroadband.co.za...

The Pentagon DID RELEASE a video from their CCTV in the parking lot. I saw it in a documentary and it was HILARIOUS! I'll describe it:

A corner of the building on the left. A liftgate in the centre. After a few seconds, an invisible object flys across the screen and The Pentagon ends up as not even a POLYGON!! ;o) Oh well... Almoast!

Does anyone remember the video?

I'll get back later when I have more time and let all know what was sooo... hilarious about it.

I'm veri courious about this forum opinion of my offshore posts! MyBB.co.za is in South Africa and I ended up out there after being banned in San Diego, Switzerlan, Germany, etc.

c u soon -dan


How come EVERYONE on this forum is ignoring my very first post above???

Please help because I can only think of ONE AND ONLY ONE REASON: This forum is a decoy.gov!!! Please prove me wrong!!

c u -dan


Hi,

Honestly I found your post and links confusing as due to a language barrier, I thought. English seems your second language and I didn't really understand what your post and link was about. Sorry.

When I have more time I will look at it again, but can you briefly summarize your post and links?



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 02:06 PM
link   


Too bad footage from all the security camera's in the area will never see the light of day after getting confiscated by the feds. All we have is this.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: peacefulpete

There were intact bodies of people working at the building that were killed. The people on the plane were reduced to pieces, which is entirely consistent with a plane crash.

The larger pieces of debris were inside the building. They couldn't begin recovery until a day or so later. They had to put the fire out, then engineering teams had to assess the building, and shore it up where needed. The less damaged areas had debris and body recovery started quickly, the more damaged areas didn't start recovery work for days.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer


Too bad footage from all the security camera's in the area will never see the light of day after getting confiscated by the feds. All we have is this.


Sorry for the naive question but where is that gif from? Is it supposed to be real video? That little white blur doesn't look like a giant plane lol.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: peacefulpete

The 757 isn't a giant plane. And at that distance it wouldn't look like one even if it was.

The fuselage is only about 14 feet in diameter. It's considered a narrow body aircraft.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: peacefulpete

There were intact bodies of people working at the building that were killed. The people on the plane were reduced to pieces, which is entirely consistent with a plane crash.

The larger pieces of debris were inside the building. They couldn't begin recovery until a day or so later. They had to put the fire out, then engineering teams had to assess the building, and shore it up where needed. The less damaged areas had debris and body recovery started quickly, the more damaged areas didn't start recovery work for days.


Well I've just never seen or heard of any sizable wreckage at the Pentagon from the mainstream media before that one article I just read from USA Today. Which makes it entirely inconsistent with almost all other mainstream news.

I'll go thru the links the other guy posted, later tonight.

But I won't believe in sizable wreckage at the Pentagon without seeing photos in a mainstream news source!

And what do you guys think of the inconsistency in that article compared to almost all other mainstream media? Looks like the early story got dropped and revised, doesn't it?



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: peacefulpete

No. That was updated after the search and rescue teams went in. So of course it was going to be different.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: peacefulpete

The 757 isn't a giant plane. And at that distance it wouldn't look like one even if it was.

The fuselage is only about 14 feet in diameter. It's considered a narrow body aircraft.


Well I'm not really trying to categorize types of aircraft. The point is that the whole world knows that the plane was much bigger than the Pentagon's damage was.

In other words, the damage isn't big enough to be from the plane in the official story.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: peacefulpete

The damage was consistent with the aircraft. The fuselage was smaller than the hole. The wings and tail wouldn't go through concrete unless it was wet. They're both hollow, and as light as they can be. The engines behind the fan section are actually very small, and all engines are ridiculously fragile.
edit on 3/19/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: peacefulpete

No. That was updated after the search and rescue teams went in. So of course it was going to be different.



Are we talking of the same "updates" here? I'm talking of the official story being "updated" to stop featuring any sizable wreckage at the Pentagon...



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: peacefulpete

It wasn't. There were no large pieces in the sense that the tail section wasn't intact, and there weren't big pieces of fuselage laying on the lawn, which is what people are used to seeing. But there was plenty of debris consistent with a 757 recovered.
edit on 3/19/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: peacefulpete

The damage was consistent with the aircraft. The fuselage was smaller than the hole. The wings and tail wouldn't go through concrete unless it was wet. They're both hollow, and as light as they can be. The engines behind the fan section are actually very small, and all engines are ridiculously fragile.


Well I'm glad to be discussing physics anyway. I really have to go right now so I can't look for sources but there are endless well-known sources explaining everything I've stated. The Pentagon's damage was not consistent with the plane in the story. There was also no wreckage there of any size, except in that one USA Today article that was apparently written before the story was revised to include no wreckage there.

The mainstream media showed lines of employees picking up tiny scraps of metal with their hands. Photos in the mainstream media. It couldn't be more inconsistent with the damage described in that USA Today article.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: peacefulpete

Because again on that day all the debris picked up was small. Pieces of engines, and landing gear were recovered later.

You won't find huge pieces anywhere. These were all different crashes than people were used to seeing. In a low speed/low angle crash you get the big pieces people expect. In a high speed/high angle crash, the usual reaction of first responders and investigators is, "where's the plane? "



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: peacefulpete

Because again on that day all the debris picked up was small. Pieces of engines, and landing gear were recovered later.

You won't find huge pieces anywhere. These were all different crashes than people were used to seeing. In a low speed/low angle crash you get the big pieces people expect. In a high speed/high angle crash, the usual reaction of first responders and investigators is, "where's the plane? "


OK but the plane crashed into the wall, so the plane should have been there. 9-11 is the only day that planes crash and mostly seem to vanish like this.

The thing about those lines of employees is that they were picking up SMALL parts with bare hands and putting it in their pockets. This is inconsistent with finding engines, landing gear, or anything else.

And that employee line thing is strange that they would make their employees do that. It's not normal plane crash activity. It seems like they wanted to remove all evidence of what actually hit.

And yeah it's ALL inconsistent with normal plane crashes as the world knows it.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join