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: 15
13
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Yule C Mann




The only one view that I would be interested in is the one the FBI confiscated from the gas station across the street from the point of impact.


There ya go.




posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: anonymous1legion




they did have cameras they just decided not to release it, as i understand they were forced to release the footage that was released through a foi request bu

Were those cameras operational at that moment?
Were those cameras being recorded at that moment?

If the cameras didn't show the actual impact would the FOI request apply?



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent

Q1: No idea, but why would they all be non operational? seems like a major security flaw as they had them there in the first place so they thought they were needed but not enough to make sure they were working?

Q2: Same as above

Q3: Maybe not as upon looking, it seems he asked specifically for footage that showed the "impact" at the pentagon, sneaky though to hold info because of how its worded,

I would just ask for all or as many of the 84 videos as possible,
more info on the foi and the videos contents www.flight77.info..." target="_blank" class="postlink">here..


One (1) DVCAM tape - no recorded video or audio information
One (1) DVCAM tape - no recorded video or audio information
One (1) DVCAM tape - no recorded video or audio information
One (1) DVCAM tape - no recorded video or audio information
One (1) DVCAM tape - no recorded video or audio information
One (1) DVCAM tape - no recorded video or audio information


why would they confiscate blank tapes? interesting to see they got HD footage too proves that good quality footage does exist
edit on 23-3-2015 by anonymous1legion because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: anonymous1legion




interesting to see they got HD footage too proves that good quality footage does exist

HD didn't exist back then.
All recordings were on modified VCR's.

I worked on many of the recorders of the day. Upgraded consumer machines with automatic pause and unpause circuits added to allow 'X' frames per second of recording. Otherwise someone would have to change the tape every 6-8 hours.
The better ones allowed 4 cameras to be recorded at the same time. But that reduced the resolution by a factor of 4.



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: anonymous1legion




interesting to see they got HD footage too proves that good quality footage does exist

HD didn't exist back then.



One (1) HDCAM video tape

link is web.archive.org...://www.flight77.info/85videos.html
cant get it to link properly

en.wikipedia.org...

1997
edit on 23-3-2015 by anonymous1legion because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: anonymous1legion

You are still looking at 4:3 format professional quality.
Not the HD we think of today.



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Why is everybody so avoiding me and why is the GIF of the UFO gently hitting The Pentagon filmed backwards as if it was the mirror image of the event?

-dan



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent


HDCAM, introduced in 1997, is a high-definition video digital recording videocassette version of digital Betacam


your statement was "HD didn't exist back then." dont back peddle, this states that it is high definition video, so you were incorrect, what is your explanation for why they would withold video that "didnt" show anything interesting?



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: anonymous1legion




what is your explanation for why they would withold video that "didnt" show anything interesting?

Firstly the video(s) do not belong to the FBI.
They can confiscate your manuscript if they feel it is important to their investigation.
But they cannot release your book to the public.
You either have to accept them at their word or jump on the conspiracy wagon.
Can you name any whistle blower regarding 911 ?
After 15 years not one person on the entire planet has come forward to say he was in on it.

And I'm not back peddling. Show me a 16:9 tv screen back then.



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 05:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: anonymous1legion




what is your explanation for why they would withold video that "didnt" show anything interesting?

Firstly the video(s) do not belong to the FBI.
They can confiscate your manuscript if they feel it is important to their investigation.
But they cannot release your book to the public.
You either have to accept them at their word or jump on the conspiracy wagon.
Can you name any whistle blower regarding 911 ?
After 15 years not one person on the entire planet has come forward to say he was in on it.

And I'm not back peddling. Show me a 16:9 tv screen back then.


en.wikipedia.org...(information_security)

An example of compartmentalization was the Manhattan Project. Personnel at Oak Ridge constructed and operated centrifuges to isolate Uranium-235 from naturally occurring uranium, but most did not know what, exactly, they were doing. Those that did know, did not know why they were doing it. Parts of the weapon were separately designed by teams who did not know how the parts interacted.


it could be done



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: danleonida
Why is everybody so avoiding me


Why should people comment on a poorly faked video?


(post by cardinalfan0596 removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 08:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: danleonida

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: danleonida. So you dont care that the video is a horrible fake. Now I WOULD believe you were a 15 year intelligence agency employee


Pesky wabbit reporting for duty! 15 year veteran pesky wabbit, that is!!!! Got it Pontiac??!! ;o))

If the Pentagon WERE hit by a missile and YOU were The Pentagon, what would you do??!!

That's what I would do in similar circumstances:

1. Confiscate ALL evidence of the attack.

2. Fabricate and dessiminate easy to discredit evidence of a missile attack.

3. At the appropiate time discredit MY OWN evidence and HOPE to sell to the public the absence of evidence as being evidence of absence! Q.E.D.

Only a US assette would require such a simple scheme to be SPOON-FED to him!

THE VERY FACT THAT FAKE PENTAGON MISSILE ATTACKS ARE SO WIDELY AVAILABLE AND AND SO OBVIOUSLY FAKE, PROVES TO ME THAT THE MISSILE VERSION IS TRUE!

About the video on this forum page...

There are no cameras these days as bad as the one which took the gif (not video). The out-of-focus apparence makes one think it was deliberate for the purpose of hiding the video doctoring. Therefore ALL Pentagon missile attack must be doctored in the plebean's mind. How convenient.

*snip*

-dan


The word 'proves' is too strong! I agree. 'Indicate' would have been a better choice.

Is it all that you have to say about the post? You broke my heart!

Wabbit, Pesky Wabbit over and out!
edit on 23-3-2015 by danleonida because: (no reason given)

edit on Tue Mar 24 2015 by Jbird because: snipped link



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 05:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Grimpachi
I don't think they need to reveal where they are, just give us a video showing the plane.
The only one out seems to be edited and at a dismal frame rate.


As far as camera footage from surrounding businesses I don't know why they haven't been released but as for the footage from the pentagon itself any that is shown will reveal where the camera was placed and where its blind spots may be.





In case of a series of about 80 $20K camera's 1 recording will not , cannot reveal any blindspots.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 06:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

O K

Now explain away the DNA comparisons part. You can have a drumful of DNA but without a known specimen for comparison, you just have a drumful of unknown DNA.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 07:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: teamcommander
a reply to: Zaphod58

O K

Now explain away the DNA comparisons part. You can have a drumful of DNA but without a known specimen for comparison, you just have a drumful of unknown DNA.


www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 07:53 AM
link   
a reply to: teamcommander

Comparisons to family members based on the flight manifest.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 08:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: teamcommander
a reply to: Zaphod58

O K

Now explain away the DNA comparisons part. You can have a drumful of DNA but without a known specimen for comparison, you just have a drumful of unknown DNA.


They also collected samples from the cars, hotel rooms and apartments of the hijackers.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

There were no Arabic or Samitic names on the flight manifests.
Many of the names given as hijackers were found to belong to living people.
Some say their passports, therefore their IDs, were stolen; so by whom?
And regardless how many samples you collect from regarless how many source, without a know sample for comparison, you just have alot of DNA that came from the same people.
How do you tie your "unknown donner" to a "known" data base sample?

It also seems, I remember the investigators had names "fairly quickly" after the planes crashed. How did they do all the field work so fast?

These are questions which "must" be answered before the OS can become true.
edit on 24-3-2015 by teamcommander because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: teamcommander

They left DNA samples in the cars, hotel rooms, and apartments they used, as stated above.

As for the names on the manifest, they were there, they were removed by the media when the manifests were released. The original manifest showed them on it, as did the first ones released.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join