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: 16
13
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 09:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
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.


I guess we have someone who is really "in the know".
I was not aware of the manifests being altered, just as I was not aware someone on this site would have access to the "original" manifests.
It does, however, leave open the question of having a data base of DNA to which the sample could have been compared. Even from those who used the supposed stolen identification of others
But, I would suppose those in some certain positions would have readdy access to any number of "things" which their operations may require.




posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: teamcommander

The actual airline manifests were never released. A list of names was released. The original list released by the media showed everyone on board. The hijackers were removed from the list, because they were considered suspects, not innocent passengers.

It's a simple matter of getting a DNA sample from a location known to have a person living there, and matching it to the DNA sample from the wreckage. If the two match, then there's a strong possibility that the person was on the plane.
edit on 3/24/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Then I guess there is astrong possibility that the FBI can get a sample of DNA from my bank and compare it to the sample from the coffee shop and build a case of "strong probability" that it was me who held the gun that killed the guard during a robbery.

I really do appreciate this information. I am not going back to that coffee shop until they have had time to wash off the table where I sat.
edit on 24-3-2015 by teamcommander because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: the2ofusr1

I don't think you understood what I said.

I said it wouldn't be wise to reveal to the world what their cameras were able to record. You know where they are positioned and what their blind spots may be.

I never said anything about pictures of the building or how the pentagon is laid out. I hope that clarifies what I said for you.


What about the camera footage from 6 dozen other cameras that were not on the Pentagon property, not under the control of the Pentagon and not government managed cameras. What about them? Blind spots? Pffft.

You're making excuses for bad behavior.

Cheers - Dave
edit on 3/24.2015 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: teamcommander

Yeah, because that's the same as your remains being identified at a plane crash site.

They found DNA at the places they were known to be, including the apartment they were known to live at. Those DNA samples matched DNA recovered at a plane crash site, of a flight that they were identified as boarding. Unless you're going to say that someone else with matching DNA happened to board the same plane and was killed, then the DNA matched and they were identified properly.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

No, no.

I am well arae of each persons DNA being different and can be used to identift "that" partcular individual.
I am simply in asking how they knew whose dna they where looking for nad how they truely identified that person based solely on the samples gathered without comparing them to known samples. I will admit I am not real sharp on a lot of things, which I why I ask questions,but if you don't alrady know whose DNA you have, how can you figure out who they are from just random samples alone.
Or? Are you saying somebody already knew who they were looking for in the wreckage?
Are you saying somebody already knew which motel rooms they had stayed in?
Are you saying somebody already knew which of the hijackers would be on which plane?

Like I said, I don't know a whole lot of stuff I just have a lot of questions?



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

No, no.

I am well arae of each persons DNA being different and can be used to identift "that" partcular individual.
I am simply in asking how they knew whose dna they where looking for nad how they truely identified that person based solely on the samples gathered without comparing them to known samples. I will admit I am not real sharp on a lot of things, which I why I ask questions,but if you don't alrady know whose DNA you have, how can you figure out who they are from just random samples alone.
Or? Are you saying somebody already knew who they were looking for in the wreckage?
Are you saying somebody already knew which motel rooms they had stayed in?
Are you saying somebody already knew which of the hijackers would be on which plane?

Like I said, I don't know a whole lot of stuff I just have a lot of questions?

I guess I am leading this thread off into areas in which it was not intended to go . For this I appoligize but will continue to read further replies.

Thank you.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: teamcommander

They were looking at passengers on the manifest. Everyone who boarded the plane was on the airline manifest. From there it's a fairly simple matter to track them down. When you buy a ticket you give an address, and phone number. They tracked people on the manifest down and identified them through DNA.

The sample taken from the known locations was matched to the sample from the wreckage. The apartment was leased to a specific person, and people living there are generally listed. So they take samples and match them to other samples. If they know that I live in a specific apartment, and take a sample, and it matches with a sample from a crash site, then they can say that I was almost certainly on the aircraft.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 01:08 PM
link   
The one thing all of you are truly fighting is winning this battle hands down, no matter which side you are on.

Time.

At least once on each page of this post do I see someone referenceing technology or rules/laws of today to try and defend something from almost 15 years ago. You may not be doing it intentionally, but so many do it in the 9/11 debate. We often forget the technology of that day, laugh at the pictures of how huge cell phones and video cameras were back then, and yet it was the reality, and portable technology, although present, was still in it's infancy. Do not forget phones did not have cameras yet, regular security cameras were huge and blatantly obvious, and limited to one angle and a low frame rate and quality.

Here is a research idea for some of you trying to fight this point. Find out what type of cameras there were, look for old photos of the Pentagon and actually show us all these cameras you propose to be all over. Everything I have seen so far has been purely conjectrue or heresay, no solid evidence on either side.

And do not forget the laws and rules of 2001, airports were a joke for security. Just look at popular culture and the change of times, you go from movies where romantic couples make last attempts at a relationship at the gate, running through the airport wthout a ticket. This was the truth of pre 9/11 airports, you could go almost anywhere in an airport without a ticket, without being even looked at by security. Watch a movie today and you have people trying to make it into the airport in a romantic comedy and getting tackled at security, having to wait at the entrance of the airport to welcome family and friends instead of right at their arrival gate.

Someone mentioned cameras on every stop light? Maybe in the past few years, but most certainly not in 2001.

This debate wlll just fall further and further into the rea of joke and "crazy" conspiracy nuts unless many of you stop just arguing baseless theories and start supporting an argument with actual evidence.


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

posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: danleonida




Many many people were given small amounts of explosives, told where/when/how to place them, do not ask any questions, do not talk to anyone, get the hell out of there and never come back!!!

Another crazy theory like Judy Woods space beams.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent

Sam Kent,

Trust me on this one! You are very young for your age or your job far exceeds your abilities. Pesky wabbit! Remember?

How, then, do you explain the installation of the large quantity of explosives required in a controlled demolition of this magnitude? Or you think the 'plane, boss, the plane' did it? [I wish you could watch my PC screen as I type this post!] China PC much faster!

I like your style.

-dan


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



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: danleonida

So you claim it is crazier for someone to belive a plane hit a building than for someone to believe THOUSANDS of people carried little bits of explosives into a building? Where is your evidence of this occurance?



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: CalibratedZeus

Shoot! Wabbit. Pesky Wabbit back on duty!

YES, ZEUS DEAR!

...and for a very simple reason. If The Pentagon was hit by a nitrocellulose-propelled UFO and not 'the plane, boss, the plane', then one would have to be REALLY STUPID to believe the rest of the story! ... Unless, of course, one believes that The Pentagon and the WTC are separate stories and HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER!!!


Wabbit. Pesky Wabbit signing out.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 04:08 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 05:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: danleonida
How, then, do you explain the installation of the large quantity of explosives required in a controlled demolition of this magnitude?


There is zero evidence for any explosives being used.... you seem to think a flashmob installed explosives by the "James Bond" technique of sticking egg timers to the walls!



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: danleonida
How, then, do you explain the installation of the large quantity of explosives required in a controlled demolition of this magnitude?


There is zero evidence for any explosives being used.... you seem to think a flashmob installed explosives by the "James Bond" technique of sticking egg timers to the walls!


Hello Bruce,

Zero evidence? Are you talking WTC or The Pentagon.

WTC - lots and lots of 'evidence' that caused the pancake collapse.

The Pentagon - Lots and lots of evidence of nitrocellulose burning UFO.

If YOU BELIEVE that the two events are unrelated and their togetherness is just a coincidence, then we might es well go our separate ways. If however you DON'T BELIEVE that... Once a liar, always a liar! If The Pentagon was hit by a missile, then the WTC underwent controlled demolition. Q.E.D.

About your 'Bond, James Bond' reference about 'mobs' and 'egg timers in walls'... See this: 'en.wikipedia.org...(information_security)' [the link is on this page and a few posts to the North].

How the hell do you think the Russians build the concrete dome around the crippled Chernobyl nuclear reactor in 1986!!!

THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE, ALL WITH ONE CONCRETE BUCKET, DUMP IT, GO AWAY, NEVER SHOW FACE AROUND THERE AGAIN!!

...and what about the nitrocellulose! Was never mentioned or shown on this thread until the Pesky Wabbit entered the building ;o) And now, NOBODY even dare mention it. 'Language barrier', you know!

DO YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN BY GAS TURBINE vs NITROCELLULOSE PROPELLED ROCKET ENGINE???

Jets run on kerosene burning gas turbines that make NO smoke and have NO flames coming out the rear end. RPGs and missiles (Space Shuttle too), on the other hand, run on solid rocket fuel: nitrocellulose. They leave a distinct trail of thick, white smoke behind clear flames behind rear ends. I know this because I used to play with this stuff as a kid. The commercial name for solid rocket fuel is: CELLULOID. Kodak first made it out of nitrocellulose dissolved in camphor!!

en.wikipedia.org...

Pesky Wabbit heading out...
edit on 24-3-2015 by danleonida because: add



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 08:06 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 10:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Variable
a reply to: peacefulpete




And we're talking about a supposed plane attack here. Which validates that they should have been filming planes


Huh? what would filming the sky help with exactly? Let's think clearly and logically about that shall we? Pray tell, how would filming the sky help prevent a plane attack or be useful in any way? Please... why do people who have no job in security say things like this are "common sense." Common sense to who? To people who nothing about security? Well why would they know anything useful? Why does your opinion matter, and why do you think your opinion is "common"?

V


This is getting quite rhetorical but obviously if they had video of it, it could prove what happened, if not help prevent it. Then maybe people wouldn't disbelieve the government's version of events.



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 07:07 AM
link   
a reply to: peacefulpete

How would you prevent it? Shoot it down over Crystal City where it could kill even more people? Shoot it down over Reagan National where it could kill even more? Pray its final attack vector is over the Potomac so you can shoot it down there? And even then....what happens if you have air defenses at the Pentagon and a jet shoots a missed approach from Reagan? You blast a plane of completely innocent folks out of the air? Because I can tell you first hand, an airliner taking off out of Reagan, flies right over the frigging Pentagon.




top topics



 
13
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join