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.

 

New Video Footage of Flight 77 Hitting Pentagon Released

page: 13
3
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2006 @ 12:52 AM
link   
I didnt know there where 85 video tapes.
you see we learn something new every day.
85 video tapes and this is what the Gov releases.




posted on May, 19 2006 @ 12:57 AM
link   
Keep in mind this is the Pentagon we're talking about - the heart of the US military.

I remember when I was watching the events unfold live in TV and I saw the few frames from the Pentagon, my first reaction was, well, it's the PENTAGON, it's a highly protected installation, I can understand why there wouldn't be as many pieces of video footage sprawled across the news. It's probably the LAST thing anyone in the government would want. The WTC attack and collapse was in the heart of NYC - people with video cameras everywhere. Notice we never saw any footage of these attackes from stationary CCTV cameras?

This in itself is not evidence of a cover up.



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 01:02 AM
link   
I'm not even arguing over whether there was or was not a passenger plane. I can simply state that this video does not show evidence of a Boeing passenger plane striking the pentagon. I am also asking that the government please release more tapes that provide actual evidence. I want the debates to stop, but this 1 released video of 85 videos, simply cannot be the best evidence available. How about an video from behind so that we can see the shot. Common, 84 more to go, give us something.



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 01:07 AM
link   
I can't make a comment on something I don't have more evidence about, and neither can you.

The fact remains that the evidence that we do have does shows that it was an aircraft which hit the Pentagon.

The following picture can put in perspective the size of the aircraft with the size of the Pentagon.



Just because there might be some videos which are missing doens't mean there was no aircraft which hit the Pentagon...

Again, if you are interested in the evidence then go ahead and read through those links i gave. This topic has been discussed quite a few times already, and the evidence which proves it was an aircraft which hit the Pentagon is overwhelming and clearer than the claims made by those who keep saying it wasn't an aircraft.



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 01:08 AM
link   
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that people shouldn't NEED any more evidence to prove it was a 757. Sure, the video is relatively inconclusive, but taking into consideration the PLETHORA of other evidence, I think it's fairly clear that it was what it was - a 757.

I'd LIKE to see some other footage, but I sure don't NEED to see it to dispel any doubts about it being a 757 that crashed into the Pentagon.



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite8
I'm not even arguing over whether there was or was not a passenger plane. I can simply state that this video does not show evidence of a Boeing passenger plane striking the pentagon. I am also asking that the government please release more tapes that provide actual evidence. I want the debates to stop, but this 1 released video of 85 videos, simply cannot be the best evidence available. How about an video from behind so that we can see the shot. Common, 84 more to go, give us something.


Have you thought through what you are asking about?...

You are asking for the government to make public where every camera is recording the Pentagon.

I would think that many enemies of the United States would be happy if such a request was granted.



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 01:23 AM
link   
There is nothing to hide from those photos or videos that you can't see by walking by or by photos posted all over the internet. Nothing in the videos showing the pentagon in the background would be a threat to national security.

Here is a bundle of images, up close and personal, of the pentagon. The outside of the pentagon is not the secret.
images.google.com...

Many of the tapes that were seized were from local businesses that had cameras. The majority were not pentagon owned.

[edit on 5/19/2006 by infinite8]

[edit on 5/19/2006 by infinite8]



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 01:29 AM
link   
Yet by giving all the videos from the cameras that are always recording the Pentagon, information can be gathered on what times are the cameras recording which areas, and what areas are not being recorded at what times, and that should remain a secret.

[edit on 19-5-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite8
................
Many of the tapes that were seized were from local businesses that had cameras. The majority were not pentagon owned.


Yet you, and that man which made that request throught the FOIA are asking for all videos...



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Yet by giving all the videos from the cameras that are always recording the Pentagon, information can be gathered on what times are the cameras recording which areas, and what areas are not being recorded at what times, and that should remain a secret.

[edit on 19-5-2006 by Muaddib]


Possibly could have some truth to it. I don't need all videos, just a couple good ones. I don't mind if they use some of the ones from the businesses.



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThePieMaN

Originally posted by Aris
So, PieMan and AgentSmith, what you are saying is that over a hundred or so seats and over 80 or so tons of alloys got vaporized into thin air but 66 of the 68 bodies' DNA on those seats and in those 80 or so tons withstood what those alloys didn't?

"We didn't find the plane but we found 98% of the DNA inside it"!!!

LOL!!!

Aris
I would imagine skin,bone and hair got shredded and thrown all over the place. Metal flying everywhere, bodies being thrown...it was probably like a meat grinder spewing bits and pieces all over. I really don't think it would take much to be able to read someones DNA. Fingernails, brain matter,bits of bone. Aris don't get me wrong, Im just like a lot of people here..I really don't know what occurred or wether or not it was a passenger plane or military plane but Im saying that it shouldn't be too hard to be able to identify the bodies using DNA if in fact they were present.


Pie


I understand what you're saying and agree with your reasoning. However, the problem I have with this specific crash is that I cannot conceive how on earth a crash and subsequent explosion & fire was intense enough to vaporize 80 odd tons of metals but not intense enough to vaporize the DNA within it.

What makes me even more suspicious is the fact that 90% or so of the plane can't be identified but 98% of passengers' DNA can?? That doesn't square with me. I could understand finding maybe half or less of the plane only in itty bitty parts and several positive DNA identifications but no plane ID'd yet 66 of 68 passengers ID'd???

At any rate, it's like you said, we can't tell what occured and this specific point doesn't help.



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
You need to present proof, otherwise all you are doing is making more wild claims and trying to be a victim to get some sympathy.


Sorry for butting in. I'm not taking sides in your argument with another member but I couldn't help but find your above comment ironic.

Have you, or anyone else for that matter, Muaddib, presented any proof that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon?

And when I say proof, I mean proof, not wild speculation of your own.

Show me one shred of proof.

You can't, can you.

So for you to accuse someone of 'wild speculation" when in fact you are wildly speculating yourself, is most ironic.



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
BTW the burden of proof lies on the people who claim there was no plane...

No it doesnt, the proof lies in the people who claim it was a plane and they are the only people with the evidence.

I could claim I had pixies visit me every night and then tell everyone I was right because noone could disprove my claim.

Its a lot easier to prove something is there than something isnt.



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by solidstate
Notice we never saw any footage of these attackes from stationary CCTV cameras?

This in itself is not evidence of a cover up.
That might be because CCTV cameras are generally aimed at the ground and not pointing up in the air.



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by solidstate
Bingo. It seems too many people are happy to jump on the 'it wasn't a plane' bandwagon and simply ignore all this evidence. So much solid, documented proof, and yet because the only video released is of low quality and doesn't show much, people are up in arms with theories of being lied to about what 'really' crashed. Great logic that.

And the theory that the wreckage was planted or scattered around the site afterwards - give me a break.

Frankly, I'd say the fact so much startling evidence is being IGNORED is an even bigger conspiracy in itself!!!

solidstate, you speak of "all this evidence", "solid, documented proof" and "startling evidence".

Would you be kind enough to run by me just one example of such? The best one you've seen. And so as to help our discussion, here's the thread that CatHerder had started, the one that's currently over 140 pages, specifically the page where I entered the discussion and went over all this "proof", point by point. I'm providing you with this link, with the hope that you will read my replies on pages 104 to about 110 or so, before you reply, so you can see what I've already said with regards to all that alleged "solid, documented proof" that you claim exists.



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
You are asking for the government to make public where every camera is recording the Pentagon.

I would think that many enemies of the United States would be happy if such a request was granted.
How is a camera from a hotel going to affect national security. Its a public area so anyone could look from there anyway. They might not even be looking at the Pentagon

Cameras from outside the Pentagon would show a lot less of the Pentagon than those 2 clips already released.



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
There is a lot of red tape behind allowing evidence to be given to the public.

Again, how does that request disprove what the eyewitnesses saw, and the evidence of the aircraft fuselage which is seen in the pictures taken that day?...



Here is a photo of what seems to be the APU (Auxiliary Power Unit) of a 757.







[edit on 19-5-2006 by Muaddib]

Muaddib, I'd like you to read my replies found in the link I just provided in my previous post as well because you're repeating allegations that are wild speculation.



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Yet by giving all the videos from the cameras that are always recording the Pentagon, information can be gathered on what times are the cameras recording which areas, and what areas are not being recorded at what times, and that should remain a secret.

[edit on 19-5-2006 by Muaddib]
You are clutching at straws now, those cameras are recording the security of the petrol station, hotel etc and not the pentagon, they have nothing to do with national security.

Even if they did, they would record 24/7 so they would give nothing away.



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by solidstate
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that people shouldn't NEED any more evidence to prove it was a 757. Sure, the video is relatively inconclusive, but taking into consideration the PLETHORA of other evidence, I think it's fairly clear that it was what it was - a 757.

I'd LIKE to see some other footage, but I sure don't NEED to see it to dispel any doubts about it being a 757 that crashed into the Pentagon.



Originally posted by Muaddib
I can't make a comment on something I don't have more evidence about, and neither can you.

The fact remains that the evidence that we do have does shows that it was an aircraft which hit the Pentagon.

The following picture can put in perspective the size of the aircraft with the size of the Pentagon.



Just because there might be some videos which are missing doens't mean there was no aircraft which hit the Pentagon...

Again, if you are interested in the evidence then go ahead and read through those links i gave. This topic has been discussed quite a few times already, and the evidence which proves it was an aircraft which hit the Pentagon is overwhelming and clearer than the claims made by those who keep saying it wasn't an aircraft.



"Plethora", "overwhelming" etc etc

It sure doesn't take much of anything to convince you guys, does it? Nope, a picture of a small fan disc that could be from anything for eg is good enough for you. No offence but don't give up your jobs to go become prosecutors...



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flyer

Originally posted by Muaddib
You are asking for the government to make public where every camera is recording the Pentagon.

I would think that many enemies of the United States would be happy if such a request was granted.
How is a camera from a hotel going to affect national security. Its a public area so anyone could look from there anyway. They might not even be looking at the Pentagon

Cameras from outside the Pentagon would show a lot less of the Pentagon than those 2 clips already released.


Flyer, I agree. I've said this before and I'll say it again to those who use the "national security" excuse:

Show me one freakin' video, miles away from the Pentagon, of a 757 going towards the Pentagon in the distance. I don't need to see it crash into the Pentagon up close, I don't need to see passenger faces in windows, all I need to see is a 757 descending on a path to the Pentagon. That area is one of the most surveilled places on the planet. There are cameras on rooftops and businesses for miles. "National security" is a BS excuse for cameras that are miles away and that capture what any tourist can also see so show me one video of a 757 flying towards the Pentagon, even from miles away. As one other member already said, the plane didn't pop out of a vortex right in front of the Pentagon, so let's cut the crap about "national security".



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join