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: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12 At the end of the Cold war we had 44 armed fighter jets on alert status for the Continental United States. On the morning of 9/11, we had 14.




posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

There were seven bases that had armed aircraft. Langley and Otis were the only ones near either NY or DC. Two in Florida watching for drug runners, one in AZ IIRC, also watching for drug runners, one in Cali, and one in Oregon.
edit on 12/24/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: olaru12 At the end of the Cold war we had 44 armed fighter jets on alert status for the Continental United States. On the morning of 9/11, we had 14.



Without links, it's just your opinion and you know what they say about opinions.



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: VimanaExplorer

And just what do you think the aircraft could have been intercepted with? Missile batteries at the Pentagon? Nope. There aren't any. Alert jets? The ones that were the closest, were not close enough to stop Flight 77 when it popped back up on radar screens.

The ONLY one that we had a chance to intercept was Flight 93 and those pilots, were going to have to ram Flight 93 because they had 500 cannon rounds between the three F-16s.



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 05:19 PM
link   



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

Try reading the links you post huh? On the morning of 9/11/01, we had fourteen, two at each of seven locations. And, it was one of the items always targeted for cuts.



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: VimanaExplorer


You might want to recheck your timeline on the Payne Stewart intercept...and pay attention to the time zones. It was about 75 minutes before he was "intercepted"



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: ~Lucidity There were THREE cameras for the entire side. Not as many as you think.



No. There were a lot more than three. Unless someone removed some between 1997 and 2001.



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity
On the morning of 9/11/01, there were three rooftop cameras ( per side). One on each corner and one in the middle.


edit on 24-12-2014 by cardinalfan0596 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: VimanaExplorer

We did not keep armed planes on alert during that time, it went away with the end of the cold war to save money.


Funny, it fails to mention that here.


Fighter jets are regularly scrambled by the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) in response to suspicious or unidentified aircraft flying in US airspace in the years preceding 9/11. [GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE, 5/3/1994, PP. 4; ASSOCIATED PRESS, 8/14/2002] For this task, NORAD keeps a pair of fighters on “alert” at a number of sites around the US. These fighters are armed, fueled, and ready to take off within minutes of receiving a scramble order (see Before September 11, 2001).



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: loveguy

Well here is the start of standing down from the Cold War...

www.presidency.ucsb.edu...



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: loveguy

The Alert Force wasn't even a shadow of its former self. It still existed, but at most there were 21 aircraft, although the average day had 14 ready to launch.



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Imagewerx

That point-of-view of the Pentagon camera wasn't even set up to view license plates.

I believe that a commercial airplane flew into the Pentagon, but like the OP, I think there should have been more views, more camera angles.



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 06:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: ~Lucidity
On the morning of 9/11/01, there were three rooftop cameras ( per side). One on each corner and one in the middle.



Then they should have got the plane on Video. Why won't they show it an put the controversy to rest?



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 06:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: ~Lucidity
On the morning of 9/11/01, there were three rooftop cameras ( per side). One on each corner and one in the middle.



Then they should have got the plane on Video.


How do you know that they were all recording?


Why won't they show it an put the controversy to rest?


No it would not, as there is no evidence truthers would accept if it shows there was no conspiracy. Exactly like birthers refusing to accept Obama's birth certificates, as if they accepted them it would totally destroy their silly conspiracy theories.



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 06:39 PM
link   
I remember them saying on one news channel or another that one of the cameras was destroyed during the explosion and thinking that where they fed the video to probably wasn't. But this is all just a waste of time. What the cameras would probably show probably wouldn't support the official story, so we'll never see any footage. They would never have released any if there hadn't have been a demand.



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 06:44 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

Meh that is pretty subjective.

It could go a long way to have something other then the guard shack footage that shows something enter the frame and then boom.



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 07:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: argentus
a reply to: Imagewerx

That point-of-view of the Pentagon camera wasn't even set up to view license plates.

I believe that a commercial airplane flew into the Pentagon, but like the OP, I think there should have been more views, more camera angles.

Maybe it was set up to only record those that were leaving,and there was another one to record the plates of arriving vehicles?



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Imagewerx

The standard Pentagon view as has been bandied about here, shows a police/security car arriving from the left side. It was not set up to view license plates. I find that odd. That is the same view that purports to show the plane plowing into the Pentagon. I happen to believe that a commercial plane was navigated into the Pentagon, but I'm not committed to that opinion.

I wonder, oh I wonder, why the view was oriented to view the side of vehicles, rather than the front view which would record license plates. I also wonder, oh I wonder, why this was apparently the ONLY view of the Pentagon that was released to the public. I find it very difficult to believe that this was the sole security camera that protected the Pentagon.



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: argentus

I am not sure plates are required on the front of vehicles in DC now as for the side view of the camera I believe that was from a guard station/checkpoint where cars pull up talk to a person or slide ID and the angle would show their faces or who was in the car.

I am sure there are other cameras and angles that is just the one which was released even if it wasn't' supposed to be.

edit: I just checked and DC is one of the states that requires plates in both the front and rear. I wasn't sure because some states you only need a rear plate like my state.
edit on 24-12-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join