Pentagon cctv 9/11 : where are the missing frames and the 757?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 10:12 PM
link   
Hey Swampfox,

Im curious about your response to the ACTUAL THREAD,

What happened to the missing footage from the video camera's at the pentagon?

If they were removed and hidden, why?

And do you honestly believe the Pentagon ,the US MILITARY HEART that is RIGHT NEXT to the building the PRESIDENT works in, does not have air defense?

What, back in the coldwar, we never proactivley prepared for a russian attack on the United States capital?

Your a public peasant, and by your understanding of 911, not a very smart one.
So I wouldnt expect you to comprehend the notion that the US government has air defenses that maybe you dont know about!




posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Hey Swampfox,

Im curious about your response to the ACTUAL THREAD,

What happened to the missing footage from the video camera's at the pentagon?

If they were removed and hidden, why?

And do you honestly believe the Pentagon ,the US MILITARY HEART that is RIGHT NEXT to the building the PRESIDENT works in, does not have air defense?

What, back in the coldwar, we never proactivley prepared for a russian attack on the United States capital?

Your a public peasant, and by your understanding of 911, not a very smart one.
So I wouldnt expect you to comprehend the notion that the US government has air defenses that maybe you dont know about!


As has been addressed on ATS many, many times. The FBI visited the local businesses to confiscate their security tapes in the hopes that they MIGHT show something of the airliner. The Pentagon cameras, those that were still in use on 9/11, their video (or photos, because no one has shown that they were continuous video as opposed to the type of camera at the parking gate) was also added to the FBI case file in case it ever needs to be used in a court case. Nothing was "hidden"

As for the Pentagon defenses, on 9/11/01 there were no missile emplacements or any other systems to defend against an air attack on site too great a risk to the civilian aircraft flying in and out of Reagan National. And do not bring up IFF systems. Military IFF (which is used by things like missile defense systems), is different from civilian IFF. The Pentagon, also is not right next to the White House, there is quite a bit of distance between the two. The secret service does have some other weaponry they can use against a hostile aircraft, but in the end even what they have would be using a spitball against tornado.

Then you mention the Cold War and the big, bad Soviets.....In case you missed it, the Cold War was declared over in the early 90s. Back then, we had dozens of aircraft "hotcocked" for battle up and down the coasts. That ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union. On 9/11/01, the extent of our alert defenses were 14 fighter aircraft for the entire 48 states, and of those 14, not all of them carried air to air missiles.

Then the last, your pitiful attempt to insult me. Ive been called far worse by far better people. You can chose to believe what you want, your choice to remain ignorant really doesnt affect me one way or the other.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Banshee
Don't normally jump in on topics about 9/11, but...

I lived in DC when the 9/11 stuff happened. Messed with me pretty bad because I worked in the section of the Pentagon that was destroyed until a few months before.

My best friend's younger brother, who was 19 at the time, is a volunteer firefighter, and his station was called for rescue/recovery.
The pieces of the plane were scattered inside the Pentagon. He had his fellow firefighters had to move some of the debris, including luggage, to get to the body parts.
Not bodies. Parts.
19 freakin' years old, and it tore him up.

I don't disagree that some aspects of 9/11 seem wonky, but I'm of the firm belief that it was indeed a passenger jet that crashed into the Pentagon.

-B.


i do not mean to question your integrity as a person. but am i the only one that notices that every thread like this, on many sites, there is always someone that worked at the pentagon, in or near that section, that pops up to mention how they usually dont say stuff on boards like this but..... I am not calling you a liar, I am just asking if I am the only one that has noticed how many people employed in that area of the pentagon come on boards like this to relate a personal story. What keeps tipping me off is that working there has nothing to do with the story. i worked there, i know a guy, he saw stuff. ok and what does you working there have to do with it, its not in your story...anyone?



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


So why has the FBI released tape claiming its evidence of a pentagon strike that shows nothing, yet have other video's / photos in their 'fbi' files which would show FAR MORE, being the angles and placements?

also, i think its rather ignorant to actually believe Washington DC has no air defenses... Do you think after the coldwar we just disabled and removed all our defenses?

There's air defenses over Washington DC, no matter what the climate is, I cant see the United states leaving its governmental capital, its military capital and its president unprotected via attack from the skies.

There is dissent growing amongst civilians against this administration, because many are coming to the relisation that 911 is a farce.
IF they had video / photographic PROOF, of a boeing entering the Pentagon, they would of released it.

They wouldnt release a few frames 'supposidly' showing something, that wasnt actually in the images.

The pentagon and whitehouse are within visible sight of each other, thats close enough for airdefenses to watch them both.



by the way it wasnt an insult, I was just saying it as I saw it



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 


So your saying its no big deal, because the 'plane' only had to penetrate pentagon defenses that were 'non-existent' anyway?

Oh well, I guess that wraps it up..

All you need to do now is explain how a terrorist with virtually no flying hours made the reported maneuver to guide the plane into the pentagon in the first place...




[edit on 13-7-2008 by Nonchalant]



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Eyewitnesses are virtually the only source for independent verifiable evidence.

They prove the plane COULD NOT have hit.

All of them saw the plane on the north side of the gas station making it impossible to have hit.



And gas station employee Robert Turcios even saw it pull up to go over the highway:






We don't have to theorize anymore. We have enough evidence proving what happened.

We don't need to focus on the government controlled and provided security video that shows a perfectly level approach which contradicts all the government data and is irreconcilable considering the topography and obstacles in the official flight path.


More eyewitness validation coming soon!



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


So why has the FBI released tape claiming its evidence of a pentagon strike that shows nothing, yet have other video's / photos in their 'fbi' files which would show FAR MORE, being the angles and placements?

also, i think its rather ignorant to actually believe Washington DC has no air defenses... Do you think after the coldwar we just disabled and removed all our defenses?

There's air defenses over Washington DC, no matter what the climate is, I cant see the United states leaving its governmental capital, its military capital and its president unprotected via attack from the skies.

There is dissent growing amongst civilians against this administration, because many are coming to the relisation that 911 is a farce.
IF they had video / photographic PROOF, of a boeing entering the Pentagon, they would of released it.

They wouldnt release a few frames 'supposidly' showing something, that wasnt actually in the images.

The pentagon and whitehouse are within visible sight of each other, thats close enough for airdefenses to watch them both.



by the way it wasnt an insult, I was just saying it as I saw it


As I have maintained for 7 years now, I'm pretty sure there isnt a video showing Flight 77 slamming into the Pentagon. Why hasnt the FBI gone ahead and released everything? Could be several things, bureaucratic red tape (each item, as "evidence" has to be watched and judged sensitive/not sensative). It could be that the tapes were watched and with nothing on them, were degaussed and returned to their owners or destroyed. It could be there is a tape or two that does show Flight 77 and has been kept for any future court proceedings. It also could be that the FBI still has all the tapes in a box and either no one wants to go through them for release or they are too busy with other things to worry about FOIA requests.

As for Washington DC, you can continue to believe that its ignorant to think there were no active air defenses for the city on 9/11....not going to change the fact that it is true.

Post cold war, prior to 9/11, it was judged that there were no realistic air threats to our country that would require missile emplacements around our cities. In the 50's and 60's, yes there were Nike Ajax, Nike Hercules and other systems...but those were long gone. Any potential air threat was going to be coming from overseas....leaving plenty of time for the alert fighters to launch and intercept the aircraft over the oceans. The idea of a hijacked airliner being used as a missile, was not seriously considered by anyone other than a few people who read Tom Clancy or Dale Brown. Whether or not you choose to accept it....that is what happened. We got caught with our pants down in our arrogant belief that no one could hit us at home.



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 10:30 AM
link   
You know why the info about the pentagon is so dodgy?

It was purposly done that way to keep truther arguing about if there was a plane or not. What is important is that the u.s was not only prepared for 911 but planned for it.

The pentagon wedge that was hit had just completed a blast resistant renovation project including blast resitant windows. The only wedge that got hit.


Wargames were cover for the execution of the attacks.

No plane crashed in Shanksville.

Right from 911's conception, so was the disinformation campaign that was married to it.

[edit on 14-7-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 10:32 AM
link   
To add to the conspiracy. Here is a video that reminds me of the Pentagon everytime I see it.





posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Alethia
 


"Vaporize" was a term that was very inaccurate as to what happened to Flight 77 and it doesnt help that the inaccurate statement is always taken out of context as well.


So inaccurate that it has been used by the government on multiple occasions, in both written and verbal statements. You can claim it was taken out of context if it was used once, but it hasn't been used once, nor has it only been used by one person. It's been used over and over again by several people involved in covering up what really happened.

Sometimes you have to respect peoples differing opinions and points of view, but on numerous occasion on many 9/11 threads your opinions and statements are just foolish.



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 01:54 AM
link   
I think we can all agree; that whatever side you reside on that the official story just doesn't add up. I don't know what hit the pentagon that day and we can all only speculate, some say they saw a plane, others say they saw something else.

The mind is an interesting thing, did these witnesses literally see a plane hit the pentagon or did they see a plane flying low and in the area and their mind simply associated that plane with that event because that's what the media and everyone else was saying what happened.

show any group of people something and ask them individually what they saw and you'll get a million different stories, and people will often remember things in a way that adds to a "story", meaning a witness may very well tell you what you want to hear even if its not completely accurate, what they remember or account for may be true in part but it may also be missing some key pieces which could change the story all together.

Again we can speculate about these things all we want and the facts remain that the only proof we have is the lack of proof. and a lack of proof isn't proof but what we can prove and what we should all be asking rather than speculating about what hit that building is where are the missing frames from those videos and why were they removed?



[edit on 9-2-2010 by C0le]





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join