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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Anonymous goes "full 9/11 Truther"

page: 4
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2016 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

It's one of the most guarded buildings in the world. I would argue that all the cameras are probably recording to databases for a period of time before being scrubbed for space. Having installed hundreds of CCTV systems and IP cameras over network I am confident the Pentagon uses a system similar to that.



See any planes in these videos? I see an explosion. Definitely wasn't caused by an airplane. Also the footage from the second camera in this video had to be obtained through a law suit because the feds confiscated it and would not release it. I wonder why? Oh, because there is no evidence of an airplane in them.




posted on Sep, 15 2016 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Still waiting on a good explanation of why World Trade 7 went down, too.



posted on Sep, 15 2016 @ 09:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: AnonyMason
It's one of the most guarded buildings in the world.


It is? They even hold tours of it.... what is your source for that claim?


I would argue that all the cameras are probably recording to databases for a period of time before being scrubbed for space.


So you really have no clue at all how many are recording....


]See any planes in these videos?


Yes, actually!


Oh, because there is no evidence of an airplane in them.


You really know nothing about CCTV camera's.... why would a hotel have one pointed up at the sky to show aircraft?



posted on Sep, 15 2016 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: AnonyMason
Still waiting on a good explanation of why World Trade 7 went down, too.


Already given, try following this thread!



posted on Sep, 15 2016 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
It's a constant pattern with 911 conspiracy believers.
They know it can't be this because . . . . . their gut tells them???
It has to be that because . . . . . their gut tells them??

If you want to prove there was a conspiracy on 911 you must present hard facts that will stand up in a court of law.
Not hunches or I believe.

Even the major players disagree with each other.
Richard Gage disagrees with Judy Wood.
Judy Wood disagrees with Steven Jones.

That's why this conspiracy has gone nowhere in 15 years.


got it, so you're going to completely ignore the fact that the twin towers "being pulverized" due to fire is a physical impossibility.

just because there's disagreement that stems entirely from concealment of evidence and federal non-compliance doesn't mean there wasn't foul play. those two instances have literally no correlation to one another.

you weren't big on physics in high school/college, were you?



posted on Sep, 15 2016 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

Thats a big negative. There is no explanation of the reason why WT7 fell.

Good summary of the lack of evidence from the official story:



Larry Silverstein admits to 'pulling' WT7. Pulling means a controlled demolition. But how could they perform a controlled demolition if the building wasn't wired to be brought down well ahead of time? Can't just snap your fingers and demo a building because it has an office fire. Your logic is broken.




posted on Sep, 15 2016 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

In what part of that video do you see a plane anywhere?



posted on Sep, 15 2016 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: AnonyMason
Larry Silverstein admits to 'pulling' WT7. Pulling means a controlled demolition.


Wrong again, he was talking to the FB about pulling the firefighters out of it.... please supply a valid source that "pulling" means demolition.... it actually means they pull it with cables....



posted on Sep, 15 2016 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Anyone who is honest with himself and curious, including Anonymous, can reach only one conclusion after studying the known facts and evidence--the official story regarding 911 cannot possibly be true.



posted on Sep, 15 2016 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

I'll ask again: Where exactly do you see an airplane striking the Pentagon?



posted on Sep, 15 2016 @ 10:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: AnonyMason
Larry Silverstein admits to 'pulling' WT7. Pulling means a controlled demolition.


Wrong again, he was talking to the FB about pulling the firefighters out of it.... please supply a valid source that "pulling" means demolition.... it actually means they pull it with cables....


right, because people of his caliber never twist their words with ease so as to better fit their narrative moving forward?

here's silverstein looking LARGELY uncomfortable when being confronted with questions about what he really meant:





when the person you're depending on to make your position credible has NO SENSE of legitimacy, why do you still hold onto this illogical point of view?

if I really was responsible for saving the lives of many firefighters that day by pulling them out of the building, I would NEVER back down from answering questions about the details of the event. think about it.



posted on Sep, 15 2016 @ 10:30 AM
link   


Almost 1500 architects and engineers have looked at the evidence left behind. Their conclusion? The 'official' report on that days events can not be true.



posted on Sep, 15 2016 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: AnonyMason

in b4 "AE 9/11 TRUTH, INFOWARS AND WE ARE CHANGE ARE NOT CREDIBLE SOURCES. FOX NEWS, THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND CNN ARE CREDIBLE AND FACTUAL BEYOND REPROACH."

Edit:


edit on 15-9-2016 by facedye because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2016 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: AnonyMason




It's one of the most guarded buildings in the world. I would argue that all the cameras are probably recording to databases for a period of time before being scrubbed for space. Having installed hundreds of CCTV systems and IP cameras over network I am confident the Pentagon uses a system similar to that.

You are clueless about the government way of doing things.
Firstly it's not the most heavily guarded building.
and
In 2001 they used VIDEO TAPE. Not fancy IP cameras to hard drives.
Please show us where the cameras on the mostly finished wedge were actually hooked up and working.
Please show us where any building security cameras are aimed up looking for planes as opposed to being pointed at ENTRANCE DOORS.



posted on Sep, 15 2016 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent

what a silly point of view. you know damn well there were cameras all over that building. you know damn well the cameras from surrounding buildings and service centers were confiscated.

but no, despite these obvious FACTS of the matter, he's silly for questioning why we haven't seen a clear abundance of footage from the pentagon?

spin it 'till you win it, I guess.




posted on Sep, 15 2016 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent

See all the cameras on the exterior of the building? Those are IP cameras.

You can't tell me about the technology I've used in my own trade. HAHA. The first IP cameras were installed by guess who? the government. They've been used for CCTV and security monitoring systems since 1996, and you can bet that is exactly the system used at the Pentagon. The defense industry has always been on the cutting edge of technology, and you are foolish to think for one second that every inch of the PENTAGON isn't monitored at all times. What about the camera feeds from inside the hallways and offices that were affected? Again, your argument is not logical. The burden of proof is on you. I've provided scientific evidence and sound logic to the table. You have not.

Any way, you still haven't answered my questions sufficiently. Just a bunch of deflection and angry trolling. Either you're in denial, or you are willingly perpetrating a lie.



posted on Sep, 15 2016 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent

While i think most 911 conspiracy theories are ridiculous, there is a plethora of evidence that suggests some fishy stuff happened.

The pentagon could not account for trillions, there were protests over dubya's election, the attacks lead to perpetual war, the Patriot Act, the DHS....

Wierd stuff happened, no doubt.

My biggest question is why we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, but not Saudi Arabia, though I have a pretty good idea of why.



posted on Sep, 15 2016 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: AnonyMason




The burden of proof is on you. I've provided scientific evidence and sound logic to the table. You have not.

Sorry but the burden is on you.
You are making the claim that they do have footage.
Now prove that the pentagon was actually using the new IP camera system in 2001.

Just about anyone working in government will attest to the ancient technology they hang onto.
That's what the 2.3 trillion was all about. Multiple old systems not being able to work together.



The defense industry has always been on the cutting edge of technology,

B52 our current front line heavy bomber since 1952.
AC130 Since 1968.
C5 Galaxy since 1970
T38 since 1961
CH47 Chinook since 1962
P3c Orion since 1962
USS Dallas nuke attack sub since 1981
USS Jacksonville nuke attack sub since 1981
USS Dwight D Eisenhower AC carrier since 1977
USS Ohio guided missile sub since 1981
M2 50 caliber machine gun still our main 50 cal since 1930's.
M9 pistol still in use since 1990.
M1911 pistol used for 75 years.

There is a ton of other equipment that dates back to WW2 that is still in service.
I suggest to you that the government doesn't change anything unless there is a compelling need to do so.
That includes camera systems.
PS all pentagon security is through a contracted outside company.



posted on Sep, 15 2016 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod




The pentagon could not account for trillions

Explained many times over.




My biggest question is why we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, but not Saudi Arabia,

Iraq : Because they still had overthrown Sadam and switched to democracy.
Afagn : Because that's where the Taliban was.
Not Saudi : Because the people at the top were not involved in 911 and we needed oil.

Hopefully we have learned that some countries need a dictator to function.
Democracy is only for people who can accept their candidate didn't win.




top topics



 
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join