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.

 

Citgo gas station cameras (it caught something of the attack)

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Ok, im uploading a crappy crappy Google Earth user made video that I have did with voice-over. I'll try to answer any questions for understandment the best I can, because knowing me, I'm gonna be asked because I'm not a good 'splainer.


Citgo Google Earth Moser-Made Movie

NOTE: I said Crappy, so thats a warning.




posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 04:10 PM
link   
How can anyone say that the cameria footage is even slightly good? Those videos SUCK!



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 04:20 PM
link   
I didnt say they were good, its just the way you gotta look at them to notice stuff. These were just a few things I picked up from them that caught my eye.

I think the removed camera from the first photo I posted from Jack Tripper is the 2nd one on top from the left.. it looks like the camera is titled at the bottom "Exit Entrance" which is logical from that view



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Big Moser.......

Is that the the questionable Citgo camera?

Does anyone know when it was released?



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2
Big Moser.......

Is that the the questionable Citgo camera?

Does anyone know when it was released?


Judicial Watch with Citgo Cameras tape

This link is the answer to your questions, an All-In-One Bundle!


But if you saw this and want more confirmation then I havent seen any of that nature yet.



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 02:26 AM
link   


I think the pentagon cameras showed what happened, take it for what you will.


and I agree. If you run those slow, after the Police car passes the checkpoint, you will see a cylindrical object enter from the right--just the front of it, and a nanosecond later there is a bright flash and then the fireball. I can say this for sure--the object that hit the Pentagon is no and was not a Boeing 757. What it is, is a cruise missile. The smoking gun on that is that this device is much smaller than the Jet Fighter which sits in frrot of the Pentagon and that Jet Fighter is visible in the film an dwrfs the device, which passes between the Jet and the camera. The explosion itself was consistant with the blast characteristics of a 1000 pound shaped charge. It needs to be understood that if, indeed, a 757 loaded with fuel had hit the building, there would have been debris all over the place, shrapnel flying everywhere, and a rather intense shockwave which would have taken out the cameras at the checkpoint. They were not even rattled. The shockwaves from shaped charge explosives travels forward and not to the side, using that force to aid in boring a hole in the target. That is exactly the type of damage seen in the Pentagon.

Those two videos are available on the same site as the Citgo videos, and they are Pentagon 1 and 2, taken from 2 cameras in different locations at the same checkpoint. You will have to look for the object as it is moving very fast. Keep your eyes on the Jet aircraft and your mopuse on the pause button.

Is this a conspiracy? -- I don't know. What I do know is that no 757 wide body passenger jet hit the Pentagon.



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by jaguarmike
Chavez owns Citgo, correct? Puts his "devil" comment into perspective.


OMG you're right! That man planned this all along, had gas stations built all over America while he was still a teenager, knowing one day he'd be running Venezuala and could force us all to watch fuzzy videos. Pure.. evil.. genius!



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 07:58 AM
link   
Little fox


“With the release of this videotape, we are one step closer to completing the public record on the September 11 terrorist attacks,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The CITGO tape evidently does not show the Pentagon attack, which the American people can now see for themselves. This videotape was the subject of intense public debate. Now that it has been released to the public, there is no reason for further speculation about what it does or does not show.”


It's amazing that you can actually see something which no one else can.

And what do you actually know about shaped charges.

The Citgo cameras show nothing.

And we'll have to wait till Nov. 9th to view the hotel camera video.



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2
Little fox


“With the release of this videotape, we are one step closer to completing the public record on the September 11 terrorist attacks,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The CITGO tape evidently does not show the Pentagon attack, which the American people can now see for themselves. This videotape was the subject of intense public debate. Now that it has been released to the public, there is no reason for further speculation about what it does or does not show.”


It's amazing that you can actually see something which no one else can.

And what do you actually know about shaped charges.

The Citgo cameras show nothing.

And we'll have to wait till Nov. 9th to view the hotel camera video.


FerretMan--

It's there alright; maybe you need to look a little closer. If any of you were sitting here, I could show it to you. What do I know about shaped charges and explosives in general? That might surprise you. The same holds true with ordinance in general. Put it this way, QB & D, DRT, and OD School in the US Military teaches a person a whole lot about these things--then you get to do it Live.

BTW -- I agree that the Citgo cameras show "not much"--including not enough, unless one is really into the Boom of it all.



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Is there a more high quality video of it then on youtube? All I see is heavily pixelated nothingness.

I want to see hi-quality nothingness please.

Also, why not also reveal the um, 28 something perimeter videos, or the security camera from the hotel? I mean, if theyre efforts of releasing this is solely to debunk the claims and proove that it shows nothing, why not release all the other ones, which would show either nothing, or the plane.

hmm..

[edit on 9-27-2006 by WolfofWar]



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 06:32 PM
link   
That video is a but rough to look at and understand other than the time differences and such. I can't possibly understand why those video tape recordings are so crappy, especially seeing that it's suppose to capture liscense plates or theives or whatever.. Doesn't look like they work very well. Some of those are just dummy cameras to make you think you're being watched. (I know this cause I was jumped once and went back to get the tape for the procecution and the camera was just a plastic model)

I still like the video I archived moments after it was air'd. However this video: www.youtube.com...
shows one particular thing that is also on my archived video, the long nosed whatever enters the video at 1:26, then it's in the building at 1:27. One of the best pictures. I'll work on searching for my archived videos on whatever harddrive I was using at the time to see, Cause I know I have one that actually shows the 'annomily' in it's full spectrum about near the middle of the grass just before impact.

I took a screenshot of 1:26 and cropped it down just to where we can see the long nosed something appear on the left. You can easily find it if you head to 1:26 on the video.




posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Great picture, shame the clarities shot. It looks like each frame is about a second lapse or two, so thats the extent of whatever it is we're gonna seen.

Something interestingthoughis how low it is. Youd think it would be almost scraping along the ground.



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 09:14 PM
link   
If my camera positionings are correct from the video that I posted atop page 2, then what the hell makes a flash out in the Cemetary? Again, the flash is on the top right camera Dual Pump Side.

Can anyone help me visualize what could cause such a flash?



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by wyldwylly
That video is a but rough to look at and understand other than the time differences and such. I can't possibly understand why those video tape recordings are so crappy, especially seeing that it's suppose to capture liscense plates or theives or whatever.. Doesn't look like they work very well. Some of those are just dummy cameras to make you think you're being watched. (I know this cause I was jumped once and went back to get the tape for the procecution and the camera was just a plastic model)

I still like the video I archived moments after it was air'd. However this video: www.youtube.com...
shows one particular thing that is also on my archived video, the long nosed whatever enters the video at 1:26, then it's in the building at 1:27. One of the best pictures. I'll work on searching for my archived videos on whatever harddrive I was using at the time to see, Cause I know I have one that actually shows the 'annomily' in it's full spectrum about near the middle of the grass just before impact.

I took a screenshot of 1:26 and cropped it down just to where we can see the long nosed something appear on the left. You can easily find it if you head to 1:26 on the video.


Wyldwylly

Thank you Sir, this is exactly what I was talking about. Notice that the "thing" that hit the building is dwarfed by the F-100 fighter behind it at some distance. That F-100 Super Sabre is mounted on pedistals in from of the entrance to the AF wing of the Pentagon. Think you would have seen that behing a 757? Not likely!



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 06:12 AM
link   
My biggest 2 questions about the missle theory.

1.Do you think the people behind this all would risk having a missle hit the Pentagon in such a populated area?It's an incredibly huge risk and if you have any common sense you probly wouldnt go with that plan.All it would take is a random person to take a picture of it or the thing missing its target to make this country go to war with itself.I know there were a few witness that said they may of seen a missle,but the vast majority saw a plane.If it were the other way around this country would be in shambles.

2. If a missle did hit it then where is the airliner that went missing along with all the passengers?I guarantee if they flew the plane to some other designation it would of taken a while to get there and with todays technology "CELLPHONES ANYONE" somebody would of called a relative or a friend in the confusion.


I do think it's possible that they used a missle but highly unlikely.It's just to risky.

[edit on 28-9-2006 by Samblack]



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 08:38 AM
link   
Samblack, thats why quite a lot of 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists believe the Pentagon attack is a deliberate honey pot. The deliberate ambiguity surrounding it is designed to perpetuate outlandish theories such as "no plane hit the Pentagon"". The lack of camera footage released and almost complete silence on the fine details from the government is believed to be designed to lure in the wild 9/11 theories, then completely cut them off at the knees by releasing crystal clear footage at a later date - hence killing any credibility the 9/11 truth movement has.



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 08:56 AM
link   
What is this CCTV footage supposed to show ? Seriously, I can't see anything whatsoever that could be used by anyone to prove or disprove that anything flew by/exploded/did a cartwheel past the Pentagon.



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 12:20 PM
link   
alright this thread forced me to subscribe lol

what are you people looking at that aren't seeing anything. on the youtube vid watch the top right surveillance footage from the 48 second mark of the recording through the 20 seconds or so that follow.

there is a plane there for sure. now to identify it. to me it looks as if the fuselage is mounted below the wings which does not fit with the official line of an airliner, but the footage is so bad it is hard to really tell for sure. if indeed the fuselage is beneath the wings then this tape adds some credibility to the a3 theories.



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Samblack, thats why quite a lot of 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists believe the Pentagon attack is a deliberate honey pot. The deliberate ambiguity surrounding it is designed to perpetuate outlandish theories such as "no plane hit the Pentagon"". The lack of camera footage released and almost complete silence on the fine details from the government is believed to be designed to lure in the wild 9/11 theories, then completely cut them off at the knees by releasing crystal clear footage at a later date - hence killing any credibility the 9/11 truth movement has.


Oh, Yea! ---just like they did with the JFK Assisnation-------nuff said.


Slamback--

Yes, they would use a Smart Weapon for the exact reasons that you state that they wouldn't. As to Flight 77-- arrangements can be easily made. Trust me, it's been done a thousand times over many years under the cloak of National Security.



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 03:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ed Littlefox
Oh, Yea! ---just like they did with the JFK Assisnation-------nuff said.

Some how I dont think the prevalence of security cameras in 1963 matched that of today. Therefore if any one produced hi-resolution footage of the assassination it would implicate more people than the patsy Oswald. So, really "nuff said"?

Here is the problem I have with the "no plane hit the Pentagon" theory. Why go to all the effort to stage an attack on the Pentagon and not capitalize on it's shock value ad nauseum, like the WTC attack?

Why use a missile, or drone, when two planes had already been utilized to strike the WTC buildings? Why complicate matters by using something different to what had already been used that day, for less gain?

Unless some one can come up with a theory, or better still - evidence, that something worthwhile was destroyed in the Pentagon attack which could not have been achieved by a standard plane collision then I see no reason why a plane was not used.

I've heard rumours that an anti-neocon (anti-Cheney) faction within the Pentagon was plotting against the Bush administration, and those where targeted on 9/11. That might explain why a plane was not used, as a plane would of comparitively bounced off the reinforced section of the Pentagon. Whereas a missile obviously would of punched right through it.

It's all fine and well to say "no plane hit the Pentagon", I would consider it possibly if only a rational explaination of "why" was provided along side it to explain what benefit a non-plane-attack has over a plane-attack.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join