Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Flight77.info - Pentagon video release imminent?

page: 31
1
<< 28  29  30    32 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 21 2006 @ 01:32 PM
link   
The title of this thread is laughable.

I was watching CNN earlier and they had James McKintyre (I think
) on there talking about the new tape. This guy says that the conspiracy theories are bad because they offend the families with loved ones who died and they're pretty convincing. He says he hopes this new tape gets rid of them, but then turns around and says the Pentagon still has 80 tapes that they have not released.

80 TAPES!!!

And you think they're going to release actual video soon...





posted on May, 21 2006 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Actually truthseeka, I believe it is 84. You nearly did yourself out of 4 pieces of evidence!
Why don't you get your lawyer to file an FOIA request as well? With the heat on from multiple sources they are less likely to keep witholding them.

www.flight77.info...



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Actually truthseeka, I believe it is 84. You nearly did yourself out of 4 pieces of evidence!
Why don't you get your lawyer to file an FOIA request as well? With the heat on from multiple sources they are less likely to keep witholding them.

www.flight77.info...


Man, you never run out of excuses for these pieces of spit.


So, they're really going to release these tapes with "pressure" from multiple groups? Funny how this new "pressure" puts out a weaker tape than the previous ones. And this is supposed to squash all the conspiracy theories?

This excuse is almost as funny as the reason the guy on the call to his mom said his full name. That one STILL has me laughing.





posted on May, 22 2006 @ 04:22 AM
link   
For a guy name truthseeka, you really don't seem to put much effort into seeking the truth. The DoD got away with using the FOIA requests wording to release just one tape. With the new requests they can't do that. Why not help send on in yourself and seek the truth?



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 04:26 AM
link   
No one wants to risk getting something released that might actually help the investigation, even though it's unlikely to actually end speculation it's not a risk worth taking. Anyway, it makes things look better for the cause if you can say that the Government is witholding information, letting people know that as citizens they actually have the power to get things done is something best kept in the dark..
If people were ever to realise the power they do have as individuals and as a society, God forbid, then it would do the Truth Movement no good at all.

[edit on 22-5-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainLazy
For a guy name truthseeka, you really don't seem to put much effort into seeking the truth. The DoD got away with using the FOIA requests wording to release just one tape. With the new requests they can't do that. Why not help send on in yourself and seek the truth?


What are you talking about?

It appears you would rather believe people who are PROVEN to be liars. There is NO DEBATING that these people lie to America and the rest of the world! You remember Rumsfeld saying that they KNEW where Saddam's WMDs were? Oh, that's right, he never said that; ask Morgan Reynolds. Hell, he even said he NEVER EVEN SAID there were weapons of mass destruction.

This guy's a piece of work. He has even admitted on the record that they shot down Flight 93 and a missile hit the Pentagon. And this guy is top brass.
And we know about all the other lies told constantly, especially from the Liar in Chief.

You seem to thing the Pentagon released this tape in an actual effort to prove the official story. Why you think they put out that crappy tape to do this is beyond me. You ever wonder why they confiscated 84 tapes (thanks for the actual number AgentSmith
) in the first place, if, like McIntyre said, they don't even have anything useful on them?



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
It appears you would rather believe people who are PROVEN to be liars. There is NO DEBATING that these people lie to America and the rest of the world! You remember Rumsfeld saying that they KNEW where Saddam's WMDs were? Oh, that's right, he never said that; ask Morgan Reynolds. Hell, he even said he NEVER EVEN SAID there were weapons of mass destruction.


Irrelevant IMO, two different topics.


This guy's a piece of work. He has even admitted on the record that they shot down Flight 93 and a missile hit the Pentagon.


He said no such thing. I think you'll find he meant that they used a plane as a missile.


You seem to thing the Pentagon released this tape in an actual effort to prove the official story.


Actually I believe it's in responce to a FOIA order.


You ever wonder why they confiscated 84 tapes


Of course I do. The only difference is that I'd rather wait and find out for certain rather than using it to fit a predetermined conclusion.



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Whenever there is a crime of any kind, it's standard procedure to seize anything that could provide evidence or give a clue. It's common sense really, problem is once something is caught up in the red tape it takes an eternity to get it back out. Would you not find it odd if they didn't seize any CCTV footage that had the slightest chance of capturing something? I'd call it incompetent.

And Rumsfeld most likely did not say that, when you read the sentence in context it's obvious that he was saying the aircraft was used as a missile. The way the person who transcribed it wrote it does not make any sense anyway, not only that in that paragraph as well as in various other parts of the written interview you can see they have written 'inaudible'. So obviously the recording they used was of poor quality or it was for some other reason, such as he mumbled. I doubt he would have talked about one of the planes full of passengers being used as a missile in the highest of spirits, you have to apply a little common sense and knowledge to these things.

Look at it again:


They [find a lot] and any number of terrorist efforts have been dissuaded, deterred or stopped by good intelligence gathering and good preventive work. It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it's physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them.
www.the7thfire.com... and History/Missile-Not-Flight-77.html


"Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center."

Is the interesting bit, often edited down by TruthSeekers to "and the missile to damage this building".
Mainly due to the fact the whole paragraph makes little sense, it's pretty obivous it should say:

"Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens as a missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center."

The (inaudible) there and in other parts of the interview clearly indicate problems with the quality of the transcription anyway.

Just another detail best left under the carpet, huh?

[edit on 22-5-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 04:01 PM
link   
ok i havnt read it all so it may have already been posted but 43 seconds in at the right behind the post is what hit the building. that does not look like a plane to me!!!



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 04:23 PM
link   
OF course it doesn't, we can't see it. That's why there is still debate and no conclusion.



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 04:30 PM
link   
It's irrelevant that the powers that be constantly lie to the people? Ha ha ha! I guess it's also irrelevant that the Pentagon puts out fake news, huh?


By your logic, if rumor has it that your wife/girlfriend/main bitch (Ludacris lyric reference
) is doing you dirty behind your back, it's irrelevant if you've caught her in lie after lie after lie already.


Ok, Smith, what's your excuse for his reference to Flight 93 being shot down?

See, Rumsfeld is a sick genius. Dude knows that if he puts out juicy statements like those, he can get people to focus on the weaker issues of 9/11, i.e. the Pentagon and Flight 93. Prime example, I'm here arguing about the Pentagon when I have always chosen to stay away from this debate.

I depise Cockroach Rumsfeld, but I gotta admire his twisted genius, though...



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka

This excuse is almost as funny as the reason the guy on the call to his mom said his full name. That one STILL has me laughing.




hehe

i used to do that when i was a kid in christmas cards and things.
hmm not sure i have done it since i was 9 though



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 09:04 AM
link   
I finnaly created 2 difference Pics.
Might be of interest for the one or the other.





The Difference pic (far right) is created as the left Image minus the middle Image + a neutral OffsetValue (grey (127,127,127))

Resulting color components values above 255 are cutted on 255 and below 0 cutted to 0.

As source I took the ignoranceisnotbliss's 4 jpgs (that's why you see jpgs artifacts also).



[edit on 27-5-2006 by g210]



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 09:22 AM
link   
what does this tell us? i dont really understand it

i await some real footage. this stuff is just wierd



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by AdamJ
what does this tell us? i dont really understand it


Whatever you want that it tells you.

For non official story believer it's clearly a bad joke and for the believer a boeing 757.


I personel see the anomalies in front of this 'smoke trails' as interesting.


Originally posted by AdamJ
i await some real footage. this stuff is just wierd


Who not. Guess our wish will never be fullfilled. It's a shame of a gov.
At least they can not hide that wtc7 free fall.



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by g210
I finnaly created 2 difference Pics.
Might be of interest for the one or the other.
{edit on 27-5-2006 by g210]


I could be wrong, but that looks to me as if the camera has captured two objects - the first could be a plane nosecone and then another faster moving object (missile?) following directly behind. Either that, or the second object is merely a smoke trail from the first object



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by alienanderson
I could be wrong, but that looks to me as if the camera has captured two objects - the first could be a plane nosecone and then another faster moving object (missile?) following directly behind. Either that, or the second object is merely a smoke trail from the first object


My best guess is the second object is the engine's reaction to running on full throttle and chewing something, say piece of lamp pole. ie smoke.

EDITED my favourite mistype, teh


[edit on 27-5-2006 by tuccy]



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by tuccy
My best guess is the second object is the engine's reaction to running on full throttle and chewing something, say piece of lamp pole. ie smoke.


Probably is. It made me think though, and I can't say I've heard this theory anywhere else - that a plane AND a missile hit the Pentagon rather than one or the other


WRONG - Just read later post by AdamJ - of course - this is from two different cameras, showing the same object captured at (almost) exactly the same time

[edit on 27/5/2006 by alienanderson]



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 01:29 PM
link   
g210, did you create your avatar in photoshop? if so how(if its simple)?

btw is this video and original 2003 image frames from the same camera then, i probably should read this thread but im to tired to trawl through it.
I assumed they were when i saw them but of course there are bits missing and a lens flare has appeared, so they arnt...



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by alienanderson
WRONG - Just read later post by AdamJ - of course - this is from two different cameras, showing the same object captured at (almost) exactly the same time

[edit on 27/5/2006 by alienanderson]


Yup, I know that already - two different cameras capturing the same place with almost the same field of view. There is some time difference, though, but to determine how long interval was there between these two shots it'd be needed to know how exactly were the camera frames sampled to the tape.





new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 28  29  30    32 >>

log in

join