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.

 

Flight77.info - Pentagon video release imminent?

page: 13
1
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2006 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by denynothing
well today is may 16 has the info came out


What info were you expecting?




posted on May, 16 2006 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
In EVERY airplane crash, huh?


seekerof

[edit on 16-5-2006 by Seekerof]


Excuse my use of absolutes; I try to stay away from them. In most



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tranceopticalinclined

Originally posted by Clipper

Originally posted by Tranceopticalinclined
easiest thing to do with people you dont care about is to Kill them, No worries of anykind then, at least this is how the so called Professionals do it. Now i dunno what they used but i do know that this most likely wouldnt of been thought of to draw the attention its gonna, an i feel that we will get the info we need thru the mass media exposure.

question is. if america finds out our guberment did something with 9/11 what will happen next. thats alot of power to be shown an fraud.



But why use a missile on the Pentagon, then kill the passangers on Flight 77?

Why not just fly the jet straight into the Pentagon?

Save on killing the passengers and having to use a missile and all the phy ops witnesses needed to tell lies and all those clean-up people, fire crews, ambulances, investigators etc, that would have to be part of the cover up.

I can see no logic at all in a missile. If there is a conspiracy it will more likely work if only a few people know about it.




I feel yeah, Well check it. i dont even wanna think about it, but when the guberment is invloved.
A) things get done (no resource limits)
B) people dont ask much when involved with them,
C) info from the inside is always leaked.
D) Your on a plane, thinking about whatever your gonna do when you land, then gas seeps thru the ceiling, you pass out, you dont wake up. the guberment just got rid of 187 some odd people, the world is blind yet another day. the plane is crashed into the ocean without a trace
E)(back in DC) the clean up crew is told the heat was too hot an that all organtic matter would be gone an burnt up. (clean up crew just sees metal parts an debris)

its easy if you have the resources, an thats just guesses, not fact, your imaginations are as good as mine, yer questions are the same as mine, we just think the outcome is different. lets work together an find out what really happened. i will only learn more either way. an knowing is half the battle......

[edit on 16-5-2006 by Tranceopticalinclined]



If you were in a position of power and you were planning a conspiracy, how would you go about it? It's not the sort of thing you can chair big meetings about. Why make it more complex than it needs to be.

I see it as more like the death of Thomas Becket. King Henry 2nd said in anger "who will rid me of this turbulant priest?" A rhetorical question, but four knights overheard him and went off to slaughter Becket.

Maybe the PNAC Rebuilding America's Defenses were like the King Henry's words. Or Bush said "who will help rid me of Saddam?" And a rogue CIA element were the knights.

All they would need to do was have a little chat with Bin Laden and tell him with a suitcase of cash how if there was a new Pearl Harbour in America, Al-Qaeda could recruit and expand massively if Muslims believed there was a war being waged against them.

All you do then is relax the defenses if asked to, allowing an attack to happen.



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by toogood

Originally posted by denynothing
well today is may 16 has the info came out


What info were you expecting?


Guys read a few of the recent posts. Its being discussed with an amount of emotion all around you.



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 07:03 PM
link   
Actually, seekerof that video is actually pretty interesting; I've never seen it before. Do you have any links to any text-pages about this, instead of just the video? I'd like to know more about instances where this might of happened, etc.



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Omniscient
Actually, seekerof that video is actually pretty interesting; I've never seen it before. Do you have any links to any text-pages about this, instead of just the video? I'd like to know more about instances where this might of happened, etc.

No, I do not, Omniscient.
I wish I did, but I ran across the video back after the 2001 9/11 incident and have been holding on to it since. Wish I did have some text-pages to go with the video, but I do not. My apologies.





seekerof



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ratzaroony
Eventually they will be released. The government has a system of steps that items have to go through to be declassified. This process takes years at it's fastest. Give it time and the other tapes will be released.
So why not release the evidence that backs up their story rather than something that shows nothing at all?



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheGoodDoctorFunk
I'm not going either way on where I stand on the matter. I just did a little illustrating.


Source was the image posted earlier, and below


Your painting is not right. the noise of the projektil is just that little white lower ding that look slike it is aiming into the ground and has a strange nose.

you can see it best in the cnn video time www.cnn.com 01:50
and the balck right below the white thing does also not belong to the thing.
So that thing is a lot smaller than what you draw red. And it is too small for a 757 in repect to the building impact poitn.

The nose and the down path are strange but the down path is explainable asthe side angel it hit the pentagon. the strange nose I can not match to a civil aircraft and for sure not to a 757. But I wonder if this is rather a wing tip than belonging to the nose but then it has to be a dron with a long wing visible on that angel..also doesnt fit to the 757..

( byway note that that camera view in the cnn video is somehow streched..like a wide angle objective..(the foreground is bend) and the pic quality looks improved and with a title .
somewhere was a link with exactly the same camera in a video and in stills and it looks all a little different.)



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConservativeMan
No, then people would have said that since the government planned the attacks, it had time to forge the video ahead of time.

I, for one, think this conspiracy theory is utter rubbish. 9/11 was what the government says it was.
Then why not leave the tapes from 3rd parties to be distributed to the media without government involvement? Why not allow them to keep a copy themselves?



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 07:13 PM
link   
I found a little information at least on what they were trying to accomplish in that video.

They were crashing and F4 Phantom into a thick reinforced concrete wall to see what the effects of crashing into a nuclear power plant would be.

Interesting video, and actually the first I've seen to begin to prove to me that the plane was obliterated. However, it brings up a question for me. After watching the video, you can clearly see that the wings of the plane rip through the concrete of the wal, all the way to the tips that actually escape the impact zone. If these wings can rip through a "nuclear power station" wall, how come they didn't rip through the Pentagon's and were "bent back" so to speak, as was said in the "debunk" of why the hole was so much smaller than the wingspan.


SMR

posted on May, 16 2006 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Do some of you really believe you see the 757 plane?
( Image has been doubled in size to see the mi-nute object in question )


I was just watching my local news, and talk about dis-info.
They talked about the release of new video, yet showed the old video frames.Not only that, they showed the smoke trail and said that IT was the plane !!!!

Thats twice now I have seen a news report saying that the smoke trail is the plane itself!

[edit on 16-5-2006 by SMR]



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 07:19 PM
link   
Seems to be an easier part to say the plane went poof apon impact, i mean some part of it would of been left, an if a TRUE investigation was done, we would of found tooth fragments,there are everyday fireproof things people have on them, why didnt we find them?, or something to prove what was said happen as said. i mean we have a destroyed part of a building, No Plane parts, no People, one video, an ALOT of other people TELLING us what happened.

i mean wheres Variable B ( the plane) or C ( the people) ? they need to be found out.

[edit on 16-5-2006 by Tranceopticalinclined]



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 07:21 PM
link   
cant see the plane, did i miss something??



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 07:22 PM
link   
www.oilempire.us...

THE REAL ISSUES OF COMPLICITY

WHERE Flight 77 hit - the nearly empty, recently reconstructed and strengthened sector
WHAT hit the Pentagon - Flight 77, probably electronically hijacked
HOW the air defenses did not protect the Pentagon, even after the towers had been hit
WHO scheduled multiple war game exercises on 9/11, including a "plane into building" scenario
WHY 9/11 was allowed to happen (and given technical assistance)

[edit on 16-5-2006 by HybridEB]



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 07:23 PM
link   
All you people desperatly clinging to the official story here, where is the footage confiscated from the many other cameras viewing this area, and why are you not mentioning it? You seem to be accepting that this is all the footage they have far too readily. How can you even defend this footage, and the manner in which it has been released? Are you people really that far gone?



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Omniscient
I found a little information at least on what they were trying to accomplish in that video.

They were crashing and F4 Phantom into a thick reinforced concrete wall to see what the effects of crashing into a nuclear power plant would be.

Much appreciated. I never pursued an explanation for the video, for to me, the video and what it portrayed spoke volumes enough: impact of an aircraft upon or against a hardened or reinforced object.




After watching the video, you can clearly see that the wings of the plane rip through the concrete of the wal, all the way to the tips that actually escape the impact zone.

I would beg to differ.
In viewing the video as much as I have, the only thing left in significant pieces were the wing tips. If the body or fuselage of the aircraft is destroyed, the wings were destroyed, other than the wing tips, which did not impact on the concrete wall.
Some penetration is to be expected, though.




If these wings can rip through a "nuclear power station" wall, how come they didn't rip through the Pentagon's and were "bent back" so to speak, as was said in the "debunk" of why the hole was so much smaller than the wingspan.

Actually, there was some pentration of the wings upon the Pentagon reinforced walls. I believe Catherder's topic shows the slight imprint of wings upon the Pentagon's surface walls around the main fuselage pentration.






seekerof



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Where are the other videos?!?!? This is incredible, but I can't say I didn't expect it when the time came to release more information. I'm sick of the game they play with us, they give us a bone and expect us to go along with this bull#. Where are the engines!? Where is the spot where the wings would go into the other ring?! A 757 leaves a 20x20 foot hole?!?!? This is the new JFK people, suck it up and accept it. I honestly don't know what to expect next.


SMR

posted on May, 16 2006 @ 07:36 PM
link   
And we all know an F4 Phantom slamming into a concrete wall is the exact same as if a Boeing 757 were to hit the Pentagon

Please people.You guys talk about us grabbing at straws.Where are all the believes from the Boeing thread? Where is CH? Where is HR? What do they have to say about this 'NEW' footage?

EDIT: Spelling

[edit on 16-5-2006 by SMR]



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by SMR
And we all know an F4 Phantom slamming into a concrete wall is the exact same as if a Boeing 757 were to hit the Pentagon


Obviously, the logics of physics escaped you when you made the above commentary?
Whether it was a Cessna, cruise missile, drone, UCAV, F-4, B-1A, B-2, B-52, or a 757 commercial airliner, the principle of physics applies. The F-4 video is simply an example of that, something you failed to grasp.







seekerof

[edit on 16-5-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 07:41 PM
link   


But why use a missile on the Pentagon?


Because it is infinitely more reliable than trying to horizontally fly a large commercial jetliner into a ground target with any precision, especially a jetliner whose "pilots" barely know what they are doing, flying that close to the ground, and with no homing beacons to guide them in.

Think about it! What are the chances that the inexperienced alleged terrorist pilots could accomplish that feat of skilled precision flying of a commercial airliner?

Why conceal the videos? Why delay their release? Why withhold any videos or any other evidence whatsoever? Why tell witnesses not to talk about what they saw? Why threaten and intimidate witnesses? How is national security in any way implicated by publicly releasing all the evidence without exception? You all know the answer, and it's not a pleasant one to behold. "National Security" as an excuse for concealing evidence has become synonymous with "cover my ass".

There isn't a scintilla of evidence in the "newly" released video to demonstrate that what crashed into the Pentagon is a commercial airliner.

The narrated video at the BBS link provided earlier on this thread is a propaganda pience. The commentator spews the official line as though the video supports his words. He pronounces that the video shows a 757 crashing into the Pentagon when there is nothing in the video that can be identified as a jetliner, let a lone a 757. He's hardly an "honest witness." Viewers are subliminally invited to accept that what the video shows matches the commentator's words rather than trust what their own eyes see in the video.

One thing that has always, in my mind, put the lie to the official version of the Pentagon attack is that there is only one hole. How did the wing engines, at the speed and momentum with which they would have had to be traveling, get sucked into the center hole and not each punch separate holes through the Pentagon walls? Which parts of the aircraft have the most momentum? The parts that possess the most mass? Isn’t that the jet engines?

Isn’t it physically impossible for the jet engines on the aircraft wings to have been sucked into the center hole? What does that tell you?

[edit on 5/16/2006 by dubiousone]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join