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: 6
29
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 11:30 PM
link   
i dont think this image is from any security camera. the quality is too high. i think its just showing the perspective of what the camera would have recorded. arent you an expert on gas station security cameras????


Originally posted by ferretman2
It obvious the the 'citgo' camera couldn't see anything. It was locatecin the back under a rood that streched at leadt 30 feet and the camera was pointed down.



you sure seem to think you are. u should have said this image looks too good to befrom a gas station security camera. you know , being the gas station security camera expert you obviously think you are. once again ill say, it appears to just give the perspective of what the camera would have seen.

mr valasquez didnt work at the citgo , he worked at a different gas station. pay attention.

about this....

Originally posted by ferretman2


"there's a sucker born every minute''


sorry im not baited by immature little kids.
peace ferretman

[edit on 13-9-2006 by elitegamer23]

[edit on 13-9-2006 by elitegamer23]




posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
There is one clear explanation for that... it's simple really... "they" want the conspiracy theory speculation to continue at fever pitch.


That is what my opinion has been for a while. For some reason the spin doctors want to let the speculation continue without valid explantion. It is as if they want 911 uncovered enough to destabilize things in the 911 truth movement?

Something runs deep and cold with 911 me thinks.

A plot within a plot that is at least one big step ahead of us.

Jack gave ya the wats, it was the least I could do.

[edit on 14-9-2006 by LoneGunMan]



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by LoneGunMan

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
There is one clear explanation for that... it's simple really... "they" want the conspiracy theory speculation to continue at fever pitch.


That is what my opinion has been for a while. For some reason the spin doctors want to let the speculation continue without valid explantion. It is as if they want 911 uncovered enough to destabilize things?

Something runs deep and cold with 911 me thinks.

A plot within a plot that is at least one big step ahead of us.


I was just thinking the same thing today. It seems as if the entire thing has been set up to fall.

The house of cards.

- Commit 9/11
- Leave behind hundreds of clues which implicate the government in 9/11
- Get involved in an unwinable war
- Challege the peoples documents (Constitution, bill of rights)
- Set up the economy for a fall by messing with interest rates
- Create an inflationary dollar that people lose faith in.
- Give tax breaks to the richest 1%, while taking away the buying power of the bottom 99%
- Cause the real esate market to skyrocket and allowing people to refinance all of thier debt
- Then decrease the value of thier properties and slow down the economy resulting in layoffs and downsizing of jobs
- Turn the screws by raising fuel prices which increase the cost of everything
- Pass laws making it vertually impossible to declare bankruptcy, making people prisoners to thier credit record.

The result an increasingly angry population that doesn't trust the government who will rise up againt the federal government in a 1776 like revolution against King George.

Out of the rubble will rise a New World Order, controlled by the very same people who masterminded the fall of the United States. The New World Order will be a one world government where the population is completely enslaved by a brutal cabalistic dictatorship.

It's kind of a no win situation. Fight for your freedom , only to be enslaved.


cabalistic -
1) Having a secret or hidden meaning; occult: cabalistic symbols engraved in stone.
2) Variant of kabbalistic

dictionary.reference.com...


A scene from the 1967 UK tv series, the prisoner - Episode 9 (Checkmate)




The following dialogue exchange runs over the opening titles of most episodes. The questioner is Number 6 and the respondent is Number 2, the Village chairman, a role occupied by a different man or woman in almost every episode (some actors played the role multiple times — as the reference to the "new Number 2" indicates):

"Where am I?"
"In the Village."
"What do you want?"
"Information."
"Whose side are you on?"
"That would be telling.... We want information. Information! INFORMATION."
"You won't get it."
"By hook or by crook, we will."
"Who are you?"
"The new Number 2." (This may vary — see below.)
"Who is Number 1?"
"You are Number 6."
"I am not a number — I am a free man!"
(Laughter from Number 2.)

In some cases, the voice of Number 2 in the above exchange is provided by the actor playing the character in that particular episode. However, in several episodes a different voice is used although the image of the actor playing the role is still shown. In a few episodes, Number 2 is not shown at all in order to not spoil the surprise as to the true identity of the character (such as the episodes "Many Happy Returns" and "The Girl Who Was Death"). In a couple intros, Number 2 says simply, "I am Number Two". This was used on "A. B. and C.", originally intended to be screened after "The General", which featured Colin Gordon as the character for the second time — therefore, he was not the new Number 2.

en.wikipedia.org...



[edit on 14-9-2006 by In nothing we trust]



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2
Pretty dorn pathetic if you can't answer some questions. It obvious the the 'citgo' camera couldn't see anything. It was locatecin the back under a rood that streched at leadt 30 feet and the camera was pointed down.

From the reaction by most in this thread you've proved the saying....

"there's a sucker born every minute''


Maybe I didn't explain it well enough.

The cameras watch the island, and some are angled to watch the roads running past the island, so that when a vehicle pulls out, you can see the plate. All the cameras don't angle down... seeing the roof of the car wouldn't do anyone any good!

As to the pentagon camera, the angle it was pointed in is a toss-up, but more likely than not, it saw something.

I'm probably one of the most die-hard unbelievers of the more involed 9/11 CTs, but Jack's work has raised some serious questions here. Don't be so assume you know something just to have an excuse to dismiss it.

No offense intended, either.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astygia
The cameras watch the island, and some are angled to watch the roads running past the island, so that when a vehicle pulls out, you can see the plate. All the cameras don't angle down... seeing the roof of the car wouldn't do anyone any good!

As to the pentagon camera, the angle it was pointed in is a toss-up, but more likely than not, it saw something.


How could you prosecute a non-paying customer if all you have is a tape showing cars coming and going and their license plates? You need to see what the customer did eg. they took gas and did not pay for it, I would think?



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
How could you prosecute a non-paying customer if all you have is a tape showing cars coming and going and their license plates? You need to see what the customer did eg. they took gas and did not pay for it, I would think?



Exactly. And this isn't just a special Citgo thing, that's common. Drive to any major branded gas station, check the cameras out. If it's branded Citgo, Exxon, FINA or Shell, most likely you'll see a pretty good spread of cameras watching the island and the roads.

To expand on this, apparently this Citgo in question is a government-only place. It's not outlandish to expect better-than-adequate camera positioning here; imo, it would be strange to find the opposite.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
SO,

I believe that's exactly what they want. Then, when they do release the videos (if ever), they can laugh at us and say "see the crazy fools".
Thats my theory too and then they can lump all the conspiracy theorists into 1 group and call them nutjobs.

Thats the only reasonable explanation I can come up with for everyones behaviour.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2
On another note, where is the proof that the hotel camera was not pointing at the ground, as it should of been, watching the parking lot and instead was pointed at the pentagon?

These are simple questions and certain individuals seem to be advioding them.

[edit on 13-9-2006 by ferretman2]
Why were they confiscated and not given back if they didnt show anything?



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper

But he did see a plane and he described it as "grey with no markings".

What's notable is that this is corroborated by every random unpublished eyewitness that we found.

They all described it as either white or grey with no markings.



Could that be the C-130 that was suppossedly following the 757? I'm just trying to get at the truth here. Great work BTW. I've already voted for you but I'd give you another one if I could.

BTW, next time you guys are in DC....let me know. We could maybe get a drink together.....I'll buy.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 07:43 AM
link   
Griff,

Keep trying...I've been pointed that little factoid out for what feels like 2 years now and no one will listen. YES, there was a military plane in the area - it was the C130 trying to trail Flight 77.

*sigh*



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2
Good attempt at a nice post but I amazed that all the 'high-fivers' are so quick to say 'hows the FBI going to debunk this?'.........

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).


Kinda like this view from the Citgo station below:



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 08:13 AM
link   
The best view would be from above, why doesnt some one try with google earth, I dont have it instaled.
Or maybe there are some old pictures from above with the pentagon, there has to be.
Any way the poster who started this thread has my vote
good job

[edit on 14-9-2006 by pepsi78]



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 09:04 AM
link   
From the looks of it, the C130 would fit nicely with the descriptions of some eyewitnesses. Notice that it's gray and has no windows. That could account for the Citgo employee's description of a different flight path also.



[edit on 9/14/2006 by Griff]

[edit on 9/14/2006 by Griff]

[edit on 9/14/2006 by Griff]



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
The more "crazy" conspiracy theories exist, the more we have an abdominal "signal-to-noise" ratio whereby the material pointing to the real conspiracies become harder and harder to discern. Hiding in plain sight if you will.

There has been increasing speculation form the likes of the Scholars for 9/11 truth that some of the more "hair brained" conspiracy theories are a product of some nefarious involvement of agents of the conspirators. The desired goal is to generate a back-story of laughable material that enables an easy back-handed discrediting of all conspiracy theories.

I'm not saying there are "hair brained" ideas within this particular thread... but you must agree that there is indeed a category of conspiracy theorist who's efforts end up doing more harm than good.


You know, I would've had a very hard time putting into words what you just did SO. You just explained how conspiracy theories can be used to even further prevent the truth from ever coming out, sort of damned if you do and damned if you don't. It really gives this particular conspiracy theorist a hopeless feeling.


Well put!

Peace



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 09:48 AM
link   
No. The camera in question was located on the left side, rear corner. The picture that you happen to show is from the right side. Look at the picture below my last post on page 5.

My point is that a camera located on the left farest point from the road underneath a cieling that is at least 30 feet long, pointing at an angle to watch the gas isles would not be able to see the pentagon, let alone the roadway.

Did anyone here ever take geometry??

Look at the South and north awning pic by tripper. The cameras on the north awing.the one to the right is angled down and inward ~2 feet from the ceiling.

The next lane over the camera is pointed at an angle down the lane.....a direct line would go past the left side of the pentagon.

The South awing...the camera in the middle is pointed down to the left. The camera which was 'removed' would of either pointed down the lane or at an angle through the center. This presents two problems:

If the camera is pointed down the lane a direct line would pass the left side of the pentagon by alot......

If the camera was angled down toward the middle the booth would of been in the way.

It's a very deceptive picture becasue it was taken on an angle and not from the location of the 'removed' camera.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love
You know, I would've had a very hard time putting into words what you just did SO. You just explained how conspiracy theories can be used to even further prevent the truth from ever coming out, sort of damned if you do and damned if you don't. It really gives this particular conspiracy theorist a hopeless feeling.


Well put!

Peace


This is why it is important to ATTACK the "facts", distortions, anomalies, errors, omissions, miscalculations and dodginess of the official story and not speculate too much on any particular alternative theory. this takes away their ability to counter attack and also limits thier capacity to emply straw man tactics.

First, we must discredit the official story... Then we can hopefully get the evidence released to a new team of experts for a new full and impartial investigation.

[edit on 14-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 10:19 AM
link   
I believe that there was a C-130 in the area, as well as another small private jet. IT could be either of those.

It is good to ask questions, but coincidence much be applicable to both sides.

[edit on 14-9-2006 by esdad71]



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 12:29 PM
link   


My point is that a camera located on the left farest point from the road underneath a cieling that is at least 30 feet long, pointing at an angle to watch the gas isles would not be able to see the pentagon, let alone the roadway.


It appears alot of people have skimmed over my last post, so I'll repeat.

If the FBI Figured the camera's at the Citgo, Navy Annex and Sheridan may have had
a view of the flight path or impact area, why can't you?


Mr. Tripper. Would you mind posting any unpublished eyewitness statements that you may have? Thanks



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by nextguyinline

Mr. Tripper. Would you mind posting any unpublished eyewitness statements that you may have? Thanks


Sorry but I am not going to be around until Monday and that is a different topic.

I may create another thread about this in the future.

Realize that this forum is not my first priority.

In fact it is one of my last.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
From the looks of it, the C130 would fit nicely with the descriptions of some eyewitnesses. Notice that it's gray and has no windows. That could account for the Citgo employee's description of a different flight path also.





Except that the timing and placement of the C-130 couldn't possibly explain this.

The C-130 did not fly extremely low in a path over the citgo.

The C-130 was in the area within a minute after "impact" but the citgo employee heard the impact a few SECONDS after the plane flew over him fast and low and "pulled up" in his words to avoid the overpass. (and fly over the pentagon of course!)

BUT.......I have to hand it to you.....you have figured out the deliberate COVER STORY for any reports of a fly-over.

They were all brushed off as the C-130.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join