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.

 

No Plane hit pentagon... dont beleive them

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by CatHerder

Originally posted by ResinLA
Like that vid mentions, the tapes were confinscated very shortly after the Pentagon attack. Why would they do that?


Because it's what they do. They gather any and all evidence at/of a crime...


And how do they know what was on that tape had anything to do with Moussaoui?


What a stupid question. They didn't know who did what at the time. All they knew was that it was potentially evidence of an attack on the Pentagon.

The only reason they NOW refuse to release the video tape evidence is because they've cited their rights under the FOI act to withold evidence that may be used in a criminal trial. The reason they didn't release it previously was because nobody asked for it (legally) until one private citizen filed a Freedom of Information request over a year after the attack (the Washington Post also filed an FOI for any and all video tape evidence including the guard shacks, the gas station and the hotel).


So they release the one video of it, and they tamper and distort it. What would be the reason for this?

If they wanted people to see the vids from all the other cameras present, they would make them public. They absolutely do NOT want people to see these videos. Because the videos will not show what they say they really happened, that is why.
They aren't looking to hold evidence for a trial against Moussaoui either. That is just another cover-up ploy to hide the real reason the tapes arent made public.

What kind of incriminating evidence can the tapes actually hold? I would bet, none! Nothing will be made of this. If they wanted to prosecute the guy, they would have done it already. It's not like he did anything anyway. So there can't possibly be anything on those tapes showing supposed "evidence".




posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 08:12 AM
link   


"...So there can't possibly be anything on those tapes showing supposed evidence"


I don't know about that. If the tape shows "beyond a reasonable doubt" that it was Flight 77 by AC registration numbers and markings, and if Moussaoui is linked by other evidence to this flight, then I would call that evidence.



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by JungleMike


"...So there can't possibly be anything on those tapes showing supposed evidence"


I don't know about that. If the tape shows "beyond a reasonable doubt" that it was Flight 77 by AC registration numbers and markings, and if Moussaoui is linked by other evidence to this flight, then I would call that evidence.


And you don't find it the least absurd that they would need a security camera to show that flight 77 hit the pentagon or even better, that some terrorist was on it? Please, the only reason why they would need that video is to defend themselves.



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Please people if ACCORDING TO YOU, they could modify one video, what makes you think they could not modify 3 or 4 more?

[edit on 9/7/2005 by defcon5]



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 03:49 PM
link   
I was just thinking, if THEY, whoever they may be, rigged this jet to hit the Pentagon
the exact time that explosives detonated, explosives that had been secretly and discreetly placed about the vacated builidings.
Why didn't these people realise theat cameras may be trained on them?
I mean, all those hours of planning and plotting to hurt their own nation and get away with it, wouldn't THEY have may be checked the surroundings for witnesses or instruments of recording before the fake attack?

I presume that the people posting here have taken courses in metal stresses and building structure management... or are we just people who are just guessing at the best or the worst of humanity.



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
Please people if ACCORDING TO YOU, they could modify one video, what makes you think they could not modify 3 or 4 more?

[edit on 9/7/2005 by defcon5]



They could easily modify all the videos. The problem is, how would these people look if even THOSE videos were tampered with to hide something? Let alone not showing a plane hit the Pentagon to begin with.
There is obviously reason to keep those videos from being released publicly, and it isnt because they plan on taking someone to court.



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 12:49 AM
link   
Why take the risk? I mean if the guy at the gas station realized that he had it on tape, what would keep him from switching the tape and having someone take the real tape away to hide it until he could realease it to the public? There's no reason for them to take that kind of risk.



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I'm familiar with the official explanations of the collapses, and I don't think they hold up. These are discussed much on the 9/11 part of ATS if you want more info.[/QUOTE]

And you hold advanced degrees in structural engineering, metalurgy, physics, and chemistry that support your dismissal of the official explanations made by people who DO possess one or more of these degrees?


Originally posted by bsbray11
There were also explosions that were recorded from many different video footages from many different angles that blew concrete dust out well over a hundred feet into the air before the collapse even reached the area. In demolition, these are known as "squibs": explosive charges that go off before early and stick out like sore thumbs. There does not yet exist any logical explanation of these explosions from the official-story camp. FEMA and NIST both utterly failed to even mention them in their 'explanations'.


The weight of the floors in the upper portion slamming down one floor at a time sent vibrations throughout the building. This caused the lower levels to suffer continuous damage, supports to explode (the concrete dust you saw blowing out of the seemingly undamaged sections).


Originally posted by IamIronMan
Also, I was curious about the Freedom of Information Act or what ever that is called. Wouldn't it be possible to request the video footage from the gas station through that act? or is that only for text documents? I am not familiar with any of that act at all. If it is possible, someone on ATS should get to crackin and get that footage sent to us.


The freedom of information act won't let you see any and all information. Classified information when it is in text form will be blacked out so you only see the unclassified information. A video would be edited such that you wouldn't see anything except the before and after.

Oh, and this video is a whole bunch of crap. It also ignores the loss of documented planes and the loss of lives. Further, the comment that the "wings would fly off" is completely false. The video of the plane crashing into a wall and the wings flying off does not apply because the wall is SMALLER than the plane and as such the wings sheer off. The wings would have struck and been pulverized.



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by boredom

Originally posted by bsbray11
I'm familiar with the official explanations of the collapses, and I don't think they hold up. These are discussed much on the 9/11 part of ATS if you want more info.


And you hold advanced degrees in structural engineering, metalurgy, physics, and chemistry that support your dismissal of the official explanations made by people who DO possess one or more of these degrees?


For the sake of argument, I most certainly do. And why not? It would make no difference. A fact is fact, whether stated by a fool or a genius, or a "conspiracy theorist" or a NIST or FEMA lackey. It's simply a matter of researching the information. If you're too ignorant to tell whether its true or not, then feel free to, as I said, hop on of those threads for a discussion based on science.



Originally posted by bsbray11
There were also explosions that were recorded from many different video footages from many different angles that blew concrete dust out well over a hundred feet into the air before the collapse even reached the area. In demolition, these are known as "squibs": explosive charges that go off before early and stick out like sore thumbs. There does not yet exist any logical explanation of these explosions from the official-story camp. FEMA and NIST both utterly failed to even mention them in their 'explanations'.


The weight of the floors in the upper portion slamming down one floor at a time sent vibrations throughout the building. This caused the lower levels to suffer continuous damage, supports to explode (the concrete dust you saw blowing out of the seemingly undamaged sections).


So you think that vibrations going down the building somehow caused this?



And yet there were no seismic readings from the area until the debris started hitting the ground. Look at that picture. Again, you're saying "vibrations," for which there is absolutely no evidence, did that.

Well there's a first.

Those vibrations would obviously have to be damned strong to exert such energy, and it would be a further issue to explain how exactly they would crush the concrete into powder and then blow it out over 100 feet into the air. I dare say that such strong vibrations raping the building would pick up on the seismic charts before the debris starting hitting the ground, but unfortunately that's not the case at all. But nonetheless, I can't wait for you to prove that any such "vibrations" have ever caused any such explosions in any type of structure, ever on the face of the Earth. I'd love to see this. Blowing concrete dust out over 100 feet into the air and all. You might as well be claiming that al Qaeda members were on each floor blowing themselves up in sequence, because I'm sure you'd have just as much success trying to prove it.

Btw - you're offering a theory here that neither NIST, FEMA, nor any other agency or person I have ever come across has offered. Where are your degrees for this totally unfounded suggestion? Can you say double standard?


Oh, and this video is a whole bunch of crap. It also ignores the loss of documented planes and the loss of lives. Further, the comment that the "wings would fly off" is completely false. The video of the plane crashing into a wall and the wings flying off does not apply because the wall is SMALLER than the plane and as such the wings sheer off. The wings would have struck and been pulverized.


And yet left no damage on the face of the facade.

[edit on 8-9-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
For the sake of argument, I most certainly do. And why not? It would make no difference. A fact is fact, whether stated by a fool or a genius, or a "conspiracy theorist" or a NIST or FEMA lackey. It's simply a matter of researching the information. If you're too ignorant to tell whether its true or not, then feel free to, as I said, hop on of those threads for a discussion based on science.


For the sake of argument lets assume you have more knowledge of a subject than you actually do? Fine. For the sake of argument lets assume that I'm God so therefore I'm right.

You can't "for the sake of argument" yourself a few degrees and knowledge of a subject. It *may* be a fact, but my point is that YOU can't determine that it is a fact or not because you don't have the background to refute the word of a subject matter expert.



Originally posted by bsbray11
So you think that vibrations going down the building somehow caused this?



And yet there were no seismic readings from the area until the debris started hitting the ground. Look at that picture. Again, you're saying "vibrations," for which there is absolutely no evidence, did that


Let me rephrase. By vibrations I mean "the upper floors collapsing". Drop a cinder block on the floor. It causes vibrations that shake the floor. The cinder block won't do any real damage because the floor is strong enough to withstand the weight.

In this case you have numerous floors of a building that collapse when the supports of one of the lower floor fail. The entire top section falls and strikes the next lower floor which immediately fails due to the force of many tons of weight suddenly striking it.

It isn't a complicated process really.

I don't need to prove it because the explanation I'm giving is direct from people with extensive knowledge on the subject. Read some documentation on how the building collapsed. What I'm saying comes directly from that documentation.

Perhaps it was aliens that did it. =P

If you want to believe it's all a conspiracy and that the US government was behind it, fine. That's your right as a citizen of this country, but answer this.

Where are the people who were on the plane that hit the pentagon? Where is the missing plane? What about the passengers on flight 97? was that all faked as well?

[edit on 8-9-2005 by boredom]



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 09:07 PM
link   
Boredom,

I have responded to your post on this thread, which is more appropriate for our discussion.



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 01:55 PM
link   
About the plane-into-pentagon thing, I don't believe the plane concept since
I couldn't see any wings of the plane in the building, untill I see video evidence
I stay with the story that US attacked their own building to unchain an oilhunt.



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leon Bokhove
About the plane-into-pentagon thing, I don't believe the plane concept since
I couldn't see any wings of the plane in the building, untill I see video evidence
I stay with the story that US attacked their own building to unchain an oilhunt.

Leon, an airplane is made of rather fragile materials. The wing also doubles as a fuel tank. Cause the wing to strike a hardened building (it was designed to fend off a conventional bombing from the air) at close to, or over, 500 miles per hour, and the sheet aluminum construction will simply detruct into shards of metal, undistinguishable as airplane wing parts.

However, there are distinct impact marks on the building walls that survived the impact, at the correct angle and length of a 757's wings.

BTW folks, the closest gas station to the Pentagon, is over 1.2 miles away, with NO clear view of the building. The next closest is almost 1.5 miles away, again, without a clear view. Can't see why the FBI/CIA/NSA would want any tapes that would show the camera's pointing down to the fueling islands...not up and over the slightly rolling land and between tall buildings.

Oh yeah, and speaking of the "staic discharge"....

Debunking the conspiricy
Looks to me like a shiny bit of fuselage, like I said before.



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 05:52 AM
link   
^ oh man.
You should check your own description before post crap like those you believe.
"Prove it with truth."
When i read/listen ppl ideas based only on what the govt said the thing that come to my mind is that famous phrase Bush said; "you can fool some ppl all the time, and those are the ones you have to concentrate to."
This include some folks around here....you and that howarddude for ex.

In the other hand i admire ppl like bsbray11 and few others that try to show ppl another point of view of the facts.

I, personally dont waste my time arguing because till now after all discrepancies on the official version ppl still believe it blindly.
So, let them live in their small worlds.



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Army
You can believe that Clinton didn't inhale because only ONE man told you so. Yet you fall hook line and sinker for foolish and ignorant conspiricies that must involve hundreds if not thousands of people from the President on down to commercial airline fuel handlers.....and they ALL have kept their mouths shut about it.


puhhhhleeese


Uh...when was Clinton's marijuana use even brought into this conversation? And when did anyone say they beleived him when he said that he didn't inhale. Everyone knows that he inhaled, probably more than once and on multiple occasions, he just said that so that the republicans at the time wouldn't have yet another reason to try a political assasination.

And I do believe that the Twin Towers were closed down weeks prior to attacks for "security upgrades" or something of that nature. Guess who headed the company in charge of security for the WTC? George Bush's brother.

Honestly, Clinton got A LOT of crap for a few very minor things (smoking pot, getting head in the oval office) while George Bush got very little crap for some things that should have gotten A LOT of scrutiny.



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by IamIronMan
I am just curious about what the skeptics think about this, as well as the non-believers of the conspiracy. Are your opinions biased when faced with all of the information given, because you can't accept that the towers MAY have collapsed without the help of Pres. Bush and Co. or do you take the information given and use it in a complete analysis?


The collapse of WTc1&2 was never the main point of interest for me in my surmise of something foshy with the official 9/11 story. WTC 7's collapse, NORAD's wargames/standing down, hijacker anomaly, and many other things are of much greater importance. Even the most pro Bush person has to admit that 9/11 was exactly what Bush and his pals wanted, and they certainly benefited greatly like it was some sort of magic genie lamp. At the very very least, they knew 9/11 was gonna happen and were at least complicit in the attacks. We also don't know much about "al Qaeda"'s role in the whole thing, just that supposedly the hijackers(some of whom had army flight training or were living with fbi agents) were spose to be from al qaeda, and that supposedly Osama masterminded it.



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Army
yeah, exactly.

You can believe that Clinton didn't inhale because only ONE man told you so. Yet you fall hook line and sinker for foolish and ignorant conspiricies that must involve hundreds if not thousands of people from the President on down to commercial airline fuel handlers.....and they ALL have kept their mouths shut about it.


puhhhhleeese


Let's say WTC 1&2 came down from the impact of the jets. Ok.

Well then, how do you explain:

1. NORAD conducting war games up to and on the morning of 9/11 of hijacked planes flying into WTC and the Pentagon, as well as standing down for over an hour and a half(when dozens of times that year alone fighters were scrambled within minutes of any plane going off course?) Notice how air traffic guys can be heard on audio tapes going "Is this a drill or real world?"

2. How do you explain WTC 7 falling in a perfect demolition styled inplosion within a mere 7 second free fall just a few hours after the planes hit down the block, not damaging any buildings surrounding with no real debris hitting it and only a few small fires: WITH the local radio saying they were going to bring it down and even the owner sayng on PBS he made a decision to have it brought down.

3. The Hijackers: Some are still alive and have nothing to do with criminal stuff, some of th ehijackers were trained at army flight schools in Pensacola, and at least 2 lived with an FBI agent. Also, word has it most of the supposed hijackers who did take flight schools failed miserably.

4. The fact the CIA funded and trained Osama and al Qaeda $1 billion in the 1980's to fight the soviets.

5. It is a fact that Osama was treated at an American hospital in Dubai
July of 2001, where a CIA officer met with him. As of 1998 Osama was considered enemy number one. Sept 10th thru about the 12th or 13th Osama was being treated in a Pakistani hospital. And they said they didnt know where he was on 9/11.

6. The FBI does not think Osama did it:
www.fbi.gov...

7. Many government officials, and some Israeli and Pakistani civilians in America were forewarned of the attacks...as were a lot of countries around the world.

8. Seizmagraphs registered a 2.3 earthquake seconds before the WTC fell.

9. No modern building has ever fallen due to fire, with plenty examples of newer buildings engulfed in white hot flames for near a day that didnt fall.

10. The Bushes were friends of the bin Ladens. The bin LAdens helped fund Bush' first oilk company and bailed them out, they vacationed together, and were with Bush Sr as part of a defense contracting group claled Carlyle th emorning of 9/11. They were also flown out a few days later when air travel was prohibited.

11. Many eye witness testimony, some scientific analysis and even the Shanksville mayor conclude that Flight 93 was shot down.

12. In Sept 2000, Project for a New Americna Century(Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowtiz, etc) said in order to invade Iraq and beef up millitary spending, as well as tak eover the middle east(not to mention have a new unending foe) they needed a new pearl harbor in the US.

13. Osama never admits to 9/11, except vaguely ina video that even a lot of FBI analysist think is fake.

14. The late FBI veterean Paul O Neil as well as a lot of other FBI agents were told NOT to follow the trail or try to shut down al Qaeda in 2001.

15. The former #3 CIA man Buzzy Kronkard said he thinks Osama should stay free.

Now I ask you(you can look up all these fact sfor yourself on mainstream news sites and see they are all real), do you find any of these 15 points a bit odd, and contradictory to the official story?



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 10:44 PM
link   
1. NORAD was conducting the wargames. The ATC guys weren't the ones saying "Is this real world or exercise?" That was the NORAD guys. The ATC/FAA was not part of the exercise. There was no stand down either. The FAA/ATC didn't notify them of the flight that hit the Pentagon until 4 minutes before impact. NORAD responds when the FAA/ATC notifies them that something isn't right. THEN they scramble fighters. There is a procedure that is followed before fighters are launched, and that procedure was a joke. Before 9/11 almost ALL hijacked planes were landed and demands made, so there was no rush to intercept them. The FAA assumed that the same thing would happen on 9/11. The ONLY hijacked planes that weren't landed and demands made were ones that crashed for various reasons, such as the hijacker making them fly until they ran out of fuel.

3. This has been debunked already by several organizations. The "alive" hijackers were NOT the ones that were listed on the FBI list. They had very similar names, but were not the same people. It's just like in the US where you have a bunch of guys named "John Smith" for example.

5. Non-biased, non-political, reliable sources for this?

7. See #5

9. Just because it HADN'T happened, doesn't mean it CAN'T happen. Those other buildings also didn't have 767s slammed into them at high rates of speed.



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
1. NORAD was conducting the wargames. The ATC guys weren't the ones saying "Is this real world or exercise?" That was the NORAD guys.


Zaphod,

do you believe that those NORAD excersises really took place that day? This is a little surprise for me.


I heard a lot of claims that NORAD excersises was the same simulation like attacks in reality.. Looks very weird to me.

Thanks.



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 02:35 AM
link   
Yeah, I do believe it, from the quote "Is this real world or exercise?" They wouldn't have said that if there wasn't SOME kind of exercise going on. I don't know if it was them crashing planes into the WTC, or a Russian invasion, but there was SOME kind of exercise going on. I'm not really surprised, because there are hundreds of exercises conducted every year, for many different situations. But just because there was an exercise going on, doesn't mean there was a stand down by NORAD.

The procedure on 9/11 was that the ATC would lose contact with a plane, he would spend a certain amount of time trying to contact said plane, then would notify his supervisor, who would also attempt to contact the plane, and any other planes in the area to find out if the plane was still flying, or anyone saw smoke or evidence of a crash. THEN they would notify the FAA coordinator, who at some point would make the decision to notify NORAD. You can be looking at upwards of an hour before NORAD is notified.

There was NEVER a case of fighters being scrambled imediately if a plane went a few degrees off course, and contrary to what one author wrote, there haven't been constant airborne patrols off the coast since the 1960s. It was too expensive, and too much potential for accidents. That is why fighters sit Alert 15 at the end of the runway. If hey are ordered to launch, they have 15 minutes to get airborne, and EVERYTHING gets out of the way.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join