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.

 

Details Regarding the Confiscated Security Videos Of Pentagon Attack.

page: 3
29
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 12:43 PM
link   
fricken ell mate - some ones ripped off your work !! Or is it you posting under another name in another forum???

well dude, you get my WATS vote for this month indeed for such a major piece of investigation.

(But as a person who has lost work to plagerism from another colleague before, IF you took that guys work, you need beating to death with a bat for claiming it as your own)

Hope its just you in another guise in another board - great work if it is dude.




posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 12:44 PM
link   
DTOM,

It's not exactly the same. I do believe they are using the same pics (which makes sense because they were all together), but they seem to be making their own verbage to relay the story.

Am I wrong?



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Did you guys not read his posts?

He's stated in at least two different threads now that RUSSELL PICKERING is the guy that invited them out to DC to do the investigation.

???



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Directly from this link:

This is purely B.S.. Also, the notion that the FBI missed getting that camera after acquiring 85 total videos that they admit to having is B.S.. It would have had a very valuable view and would have been in the top two most obvious non-military locations to check first - the other being the Citgo (I'll deal with that in the next post). The following photo is to locate and document the video camera that was at the Sheraton.

s15.invisionfree.com...

From the OP

This is purely B.S.. Also, the notion that the FBI missed getting that camera after acquiring 85 total videos that they admit to having is B.S.. It would have had a very valuable view and would have been in the top two most obvious non-military locations to check first - the other being the Citgo (I'll deal with that in the next post). The following photo is to locate and document the video camera that was at the Sheraton.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I hope JackTripper will reply soon so this can be straightened out.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 12:48 PM
link   
From Jack's first post in this thread:



Russell Pickering describes what we found out:

This is what we discovered about video cameras in the area. The first quote is from the FBI in regards to the FOIA filed by www.flight77.info... .

The documents can be viewed here too at full size: www.pentagonresearch.com...

Now the FBI says:


quote: "I also conducted a search of the FBI's Electronic Case File System, Investigative Case Management System, and other evidence databases for any videotapes in the possession of the FBI from the Sheraton National Hotel in Arlington, Virginia. I did not locate any such video tape." (Maguire Documents)


This is purely B.S.. Also, the notion that the FBI missed getting that camera after acquiring 85 total videos that they admit to having is B.S.. It would have had a very valuable view and would have been in the top two most obvious non-military locations to check first - the other being the Citgo (I'll deal with that in the next post). The following photo is to locate and document the video camera that was at the Sheraton.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Did you guys not read his posts?

He's stated in at least two different threads now that RUSSELL PICKERING is the guy that invited them out to DC to do the investigation.

???


I read it...He mentioned a "Russel" guy before:




Jack Tripper:

Russell Pickering describes what we found out:
This is what we discovered about video cameras in the area. The first quote is from the FBI in regards to the FOIA filed by www.flight77.info... .....



This single post here



------------------------
EDIT:Oops..Valhall...I was too slow


[edit on 13-9-2006 by dacruz]



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Either way, it still is a great compilation of evidence (or showing hardcore withelding of), and deserves the WATS votes.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 01:26 PM
link   
As I said in the Lloyd thread.....Dylan Avery invited Russell Pickering, Merc and myself to DC as research consultants for Loose Change Final Cut.


I was quite clear in giving Russell credit in this thread and mentioned when I was quoting him.

Yes I quoted him directly from that thread in the LC forum but the thread was started on Sep 5 2006 not in May.

Russell has been a member since May.


Our trip was the week of August 20th.


Here is my post from the LC forum with a play by play account of our entire trip:


s15.invisionfree.com...



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 01:39 PM
link   
But how do you know the cameras in question were pointed at the pentagon?

Usually gas station cameras are pointed toward the vechiles on the ground to record the comings and goings of customers (in case of a crime), on the entrance door to the clerk (or mini-mart) for security purposes. Why would a gas station camera be pointed at the pentagon?

The Hotel Camera - usually used for parking lot surveilance, located in a high place pointed down - why would a hotel camera be pointed at the pentagon?

Obviously no one will get to view the Pentagon camera itself......other information recorded would be top secret (comings and goings of certain individuals).



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2
But how do you know the cameras in question were pointed at the pentagon?

Usually gas station cameras are pointed toward the vechiles on the ground to record the comings and goings of customers (in case of a crime), on the entrance door to the clerk (or mini-mart) for security purposes. Why would a gas station camera be pointed at the pentagon?

The Hotel Camera - usually used for parking lot surveilance, located in a high place pointed down - why would a hotel camera be pointed at the pentagon?

Obviously no one will get to view the Pentagon camera itself......other information recorded would be top secret (comings and goings of certain individuals).


Those are high quality wide view cameras. They are not pointing "down".

There was one on the pentagon just above the impact point anyway.

The citgo station camera was pointing towards the pentagon right to the impact point.

This was confirmed by the manager at the station.

Some of the cameras would have only gotten the plane and not the impact but cameras at the navy annex, the citgo, and the pentagon itself would have gotten both.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 01:55 PM
link   
How do you know the cameras were 'high quality wide view'. And how do you know they wre not pointed down? Because (1) individual says they were?

It seems on this site when 'one person says it' people demand (and others show) actual proof.

How do you know the old (now missing) hotel camera was a high quality wide view camera which was not pointed down at the parking lot (where is was supposed to be) but at the pentagon?



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 01:58 PM
link   

You have voted Jack Tripper for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.


Again another one. Good work guys. I just want to say a few things.

1. You guys have some real cajones my friend. I'm glad you're not sitting in Gitmo right now.

2. Why didn't you guys contact me...I live in DC and would have loved to do some detective work. Although I can't afford to be arrested or even detained.

3. You guys make me feel guilty for not doing any research myself (since I live here). But, also knowing from living here that you can't just go taking photos of the pentagon without at least being detained/asked when the last time you peed etc.

4. I do know that the Citgo is military run (as in only for military or government use...not the employees.....although they might be considered government because they work for a government facility...not sure). I stopped there once when I was about to run out of gas. Thank God I read the sign before pumping gas. It says something like "this gas station is for military or government employees only" or something like that.

Nice to see you guys aren't in jail because we all know what happens to people who question/investigate the government. Just ask Professor Steven Jones. And people wonder why others aren't waiting in line to jump on the bandwagon.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 01:59 PM
link   
So the gas stations own manager isn't reliable enough to state to have knowledge of where his camera was pointed?

thats makes sense.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 02:03 PM
link   
I was thinking the same thing myself WolfofWar. But, people will take an eyewitness account from military and government personel and not question if they are legit. But, the Citgo manager has a reason to lie...unlike military and government employees.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Great thread to start……

The subject of these alleged video tapes has always captured my interest. Just last week I did a search on the net regarding these tapes and always ran across the same phrase that the hotel employees (Sheraton or Doubletree is in question) viewed the tape and were “shocked and horrified” at what they saw.

My main question at this point is who exactly were these employees? There’s no doubt in my mind that many 911 researchers have tried to gain this crucial information so why are they coming up empty-handed?

Also, there are a number of 911 lawsuits still pending. Perhaps a subpoena of the hotel employee records and subsequent possible depositions may help in the future.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 02:11 PM
link   
To be fair griff, most military and government personel's eye witness testimony doesnt need to be that well scrutinized. Its not like the entire government, from Rumsfeld to Jose the janitor, was in on 9.11.

Ofcourse, our own government's testimony doesnt need to be scrutinized either, after all, they have a problem keeping theyre mouths shut.


"I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon, the people who cut off peoples' .s on television to intimidate, to frighten – indeed the word 'terrorized' is just that. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be."

-Donald Rummsfeld 2004



Vice President Cheney: "Well, the – I suppose the toughest decision was this question of whether or not we would intercept incoming commercial aircraft. "

NBC's Tim Russert: "And you decided?"

Cheney: "We decided to do it. We'd, in effect, put a flying combat air patrol up over the city; F-16s with an AWACS, which is an airborne radar system, and tanker support so they could stay up a long time ...

"It doesn't do any good to put up a combat air patrol if you don't give them instructions to act, if, in fact, they feel it's appropriate."

Russert: "So if the United States government became aware that a hijacked commercial airliner was destined for the White House or the Capitol, we would take the plane down?"

Cheney: "Yes. The president made the decision ... that if the plane would not divert ... as a last resort, our pilots were authorized to take them out. Now, people say, you know, that's a horrendous decision to make. Well, it is. You've got an airplane full of American citizens, civilians, captured by ... terrorists, .ed and are you going to, in fact, shoot it down, obviously, and kill all those Americans on board?

"... It's a presidential-level decision, and the president made , I think, exactly the right call in this case, to say, I wished we'd had combat air patrol up over New York.'"


Loose lips sink ships.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 03:17 PM
link   
I would like to say that this is a nice piece of research, but at the same time I have a few questions.

1. The first picture, it seems to me that the camera is pointed down, towards the parking lot. Is there a guarantee that it would have picked up the footage. Usually they are panned on jsut a parking lot or somewhere on the property.

2. The citgo seems to not have any cameras pointing toward the Pentagon, and the one that is missing. I am not sure why the camera would have been confiscated, and the FBI docs state that the 'recovered videotape' not camera, shows nothing. You see, there is no proof that is was point in that direction, and by looking at the other cameras, I would think it would be pointed 'at' you in the picutre, again watching the property.

3. I am curious about the last camera, and won't comment in fear of flaming on that one.

As far as the cameras, it looks like the same camera is used in alot of these pictures which means a) they were all replaced by a area vendor with new technology in the last 5 years or b) they were photoshopped??? I think they were jsut replaced.

Very good research, and it is good that people follow through on things like this to see it for themselves. I will give you a WATS for it.

Oh, as far as eyewitnesses, yes there were, and it was a jet folks. A jet.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Thanks for the props man but all of your questions are answered in the thread.

Please read it.


As far as being a jet there, yes, I know for a fact that this was the case because we found many random unpublished eyewitnesses in the area that saw a large low flying jet.

But they contradict the official description of the plane and utterly disprove the possibility of the light poles being hit and therefore the official flight path.

The plane didn't hit the pentagon.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 03:33 PM
link   
So to sum up some latest posts one witness telling where the camera was pointed is a reliable source while tens of witnesses seeing jet impact to Pentagon aren't?
One witness is going to be 100% correct while every militaryman/govt employee is bound to be a liar and part of the coverup?



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 03:36 PM
link   
This is more like a magic trick, were angles and making you look in one place means you do not see the obvious, like the guy pulling the card out of his sleeve.

Is this intended to be associated with the lightpole conspiracy also? Also, did the FBI consficate the camera, or the tape? I have read to different versions, and I thought it was the tape?

Man, doesn't a world filled with coincidence just suck?




top topics



 
29
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join