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: 12
13
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: peacefulpete

There is more here:
Pentagon Fraud 911 737 Airliner / Missile

I'm sure this has been talked to death on this site so I'll just leave this here.




posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

The landing gear found matches perfectly to a 757. The combustion chamber found matches perfectly to an RB211. The turbine wheel matches an RB211 turbine wheel.

None of which is even close to what's used on a 737.
edit on 3/19/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
a reply to: peacefulpete

There is more here:
Pentagon Fraud 911 737 Airliner / Missile

I'm sure this has been talked to death on this site so I'll just leave this here.




I only browsed all the text for now but the photos are awesome. "A picture is worth 1,000 words."

So many photos with so little damage and no sign of any plane ever having been there.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
a reply to: peacefulpete

There is more here:
Pentagon Fraud 911 737 Airliner / Missile

I'm sure this has been talked to death on this site so I'll just leave this here.




I only browsed all the text for now but the photos are awesome. "A picture is worth 1,000 words."

So many photos with so little damage and no sign of any plane ever having been there.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: peacefulpete

Yeah, I wouldn't place much faith in that website. Especially with the horribly hoaxed video at the bottom of the page.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

You do realize that your video shows the wrong side of the building right?



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 03:34 PM
link   
www.ratical.org...

willyloman.files.wordpress.com...

www.911myths.com...

s268.photobucket.com...

Small pieces??
edit on 19-3-2015 by cardinalfan0596 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 03:52 PM
link   


It having crap cameras isn't really all that surprising to me. Fixed cameras are significantly cheaper that pan/tilt/zoom cameras are to install and maintain. Time lapse is a cheap way to save space in your data storage system.
a reply to: Shamrock6

Are you saying that the Pentagon is so broke they cannot afford pan/tilt/zoom cameras? And that they cannot afford a proper data storage system for the above?

But yet at that time in life they were finishing up a major security project that probably cost Billions and there is no possibility that they were keeping a close eye on the contractors on the grounds and in the building!

Kind of like building a new security fence and not bothering to put a gate on it. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry whom own their own business all have real time motion monitoring 24/7 I believe you won't get insurance if you don't have it and it is not expensive and the storage is minimal to say the least.

Your reasoning left me with my mouth hanging open.
Regards, Iwinder



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Any video with that kid of crappy music and no voices is not to be believed.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Iwinder

No, but they're not going to spend a bunch of money on security cameras that can go to stealth fighters.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58



No, but they're not going to spend a bunch of money on security cameras that can go to stealth fighters.


Here is something to see, gun camera footage from 1944/45

That above video is said to be over Germany



This one is of the South Pacific during the same time.

Interesting how good the quality was for 70 years ago but yet the Pentagon can't or won't produce anything this clear.

I may be a tad off topic but it makes my point clear as others have asked why no clear video? They could do it 70 years ago over seas and yet not at the center of the USA and the heartbeat of your Nation.

Regards, Iwinder


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



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Iwinder

The Pentagon cameras weren't looking where they'd see an aircraft until just prior to impact at best. They weren't worried about air threats. A car bomb was deemed the most likely threat besides an ICBM.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

From the OP's opening post



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


Yep I am one of those, why for the life of us is there not video but just a couple of still frames. As I bang away here on my keyboard I am looking at my Desktop and thinking it could easily record and store many terabytes of information and it would not break a sweat.

My father was an anti air craft gunner during WW2 and yes indeed his guns (pom poms) recorded film every time he got on the hammer. Once the skirmish was over it was time to go below decks and get debriefed. They would show footage of every gunners actions and point out bad moves and good moves. Mind you it took a day or two for them to develop the film but dad always said it was incredibly clear.

Again this was 70 years ago.
Regards, Iwinder



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Iwinder

The Pentagon cameras weren't looking where they'd see an aircraft until just prior to impact at best. They weren't worried about air threats. A car bomb was deemed the most likely threat besides an ICBM.


No wide lenses then eh? Either that is convenient or a really really dumb over sight In my opinion only.
Regards, Iwinder



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Iwinder

The area they hit was focused on the parking lots and roads in on that side. They MIGHT have gotten a couple frames but it would be pure luck.

There are a lot of cameras there but they focus down on entrances and ground level areas.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Iwinder
No wide lenses then eh? Either that is convenient or a really really dumb over sight In my opinion only.
Regards, Iwinder


Why would they have a camera pointed at the sky? I also suppose you think they had people watching the sky 24/7 with anti aircraft defence systems....



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 05:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Iwinder
No wide lenses then eh? Either that is convenient or a really really dumb over sight In my opinion only.
Regards, Iwinder


Why would they have a camera pointed at the sky? I also suppose you think they had people watching the sky 24/7 with anti aircraft defence systems....


Take a quick trip over the Kremlin in a jet without announcing it and see just how far you get:-)
I double dog dare you.....LOL
Regards, Iwinder



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 06:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Iwinder

The area they hit was focused on the parking lots and roads in on that side. They MIGHT have gotten a couple frames but it would be pure luck.

There are a lot of cameras there but they focus down on entrances and ground level areas.


And in the two videos I posted above keep in mind some of those planes were moving big time, yet the film is very clear and maybe you could offer a sense of the speed involved with dive bombing and crashing down sans wings......I'm just guessing here but perhaps 500mph? hmmmmmmm.

Regards, Iwinder



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Iwinder

It's not that it was moving too fast, it was the angles involved. The cameras were looking down so it would have to be close to it to see it.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Iwinder

It's not that it was moving too fast, it was the angles involved. The cameras were looking down so it would have to be close to it to see it.

Do you actually have proof that All security cameras that day were looking down? I will go with 500mph for a dive bomber and a little higher for a plane sans the wings, unless you correct me I will stick with that guesstimate.
As others have mentioned where is the hotel and gas station footage?

I am not trying to be antagonistic in my posts even if it seems so. I am enjoying this thread so far its been a real thinker.
Regards, Iwinder




top topics



 
13
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join