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: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz

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?

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.


Subz--

I can understand your idea here. But, the fact is that there are two reasons for a smart weapon vs an 757. One of those reason you stated in the second paragraph above, and the evidence gathered with damage photos after the hit show exactly a damage and penetration --all the way to the E-ring--consistant only with shaped explosives--a moderately large hole that decreases in size with depth of penetration. Yes, an aircraft the size of a 757 --which Flight 77 was supposed to have been--would have left pieces of itself all over the grounds, indluding a more or less complete tail and control surfaces. The engines and their casings would never have made it through the wall, neither would the the greater parts of the wings. One of the major mysteries of Pentagon hit is the total absence of wreckage and debris, and impact furrow, consistant with the crash of a 757. In fact, there was almost no debris.
Of that debris, the most famous photo is that of a bent up piece of yellow anodized alluminum. I might add that that fragment was a complete structural strut--just bent almost double. I have never see that type of coating on any civilian aircraft. I know several people who work in the field of aviation mechanics and avionics on this very aircraft, and they have never seen a piece of a 757 that had this coating. I, and they, have seen this only on Military Equipment, including guided ordinance.

As to survelance cameras, the graphics from them are no better than the tape they are recorded on. Unfortunately, after a few uses in re-recording, and the fact that these idiots never seem to clean the lenses, the quality decays very rapidly. Funny, we can spend 7 billion a month on the Iraq War, but can't buy new tape for survelance camera recorders. Example: Next time you see a CrimeStoppers survelance clip--see if you can tell the suspect from yer nextdoor neighbor beyondthat he/she has 2 legs, 2 arms and a head. The Citgo tapes are another outstanding example.

There is plenty of evidence to support the "no plane theory" and darned little that supports the idea that a 757 hit the Pentagon--and it's all right there "in yer face".




posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 05:07 AM
link   
Ed Littlefox,

I might have given the impression that im an 9/11 official story advocate, if I did then I should clarify that I most certainly am not


I've seen all the evidence that shows an airliner did not hit the Pentagon, I just dont understand the "why" of it yet. Why didnt this cabal inside the US government crash an airliner into the Pentagon? That's the pivotal question in my mind.

It's not as if they didnt have the means, motive and conviction to do so. So why the deviation from the WTC play book? Once I've heard that I'll be more comfortable accepting the myriad of evidence that states no plane hit the Pentagon. By the way the only theory that keeps my "a plane might of hit the Pentagon" theory is that of a global hawk.



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 01:10 PM
link   
I guess neither of you bothered to watch the bit of the clip I pointed out? That's not a plane we are seeing in that 20-25 seconds of footage huh? What is it? A bird? A fly real close to the lense? Superman? A tricky shadow? I think not...

To spare you the trouble of clicking back a page, I'll repeat it:

watch the citgo youtube footage from 48 seconds in to just over a minute in, specifically what the top right camera caught

Now explain to me how that is not a plane?

I don't buy the official line, I have, with the help of this footage cementing a portion of it, formulated my own theory, one I am pretty confident in and one which I will be more than happy to share if you want to hear it, drawing together what we do know, what we have seen, and even answering some of the questions that have been posed above (such as why they wouldn't use an airliner) while also tying together the ideas and results of the research of others.

but first, explain to me how that is not a plane, I don't care what type of plane. I see a plane, you do not, explain to me what that object zipping through the video is. until we can agree on what that is there is no point at all discussing anything else.

That so many don't see anything worthwhile in the citgo footage frustrated me to the point that I felt compelled to come in here and smack some people upside the brain for failing at basic observation... I am betting that people are clinging to ideas which by admitting seeing a plane would be completely destroyed, but we'll see, I'll present the opportunity to explain before making such an accusation.



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Ed Littlefox,

I might have given the impression that im an 9/11 official story advocate, if I did then I should clarify that I most certainly am not


I've seen all the evidence that shows an airliner did not hit the Pentagon, I just dont understand the "why" of it yet. Why didnt this cabal inside the US government crash an airliner into the Pentagon? That's the pivotal question in my mind.

It's not as if they didnt have the means, motive and conviction to do so. So why the deviation from the WTC play book? Once I've heard that I'll be more comfortable accepting the myriad of evidence that states no plane hit the Pentagon. By the way the only theory that keeps my "a plane might of hit the Pentagon" theory is that of a global hawk.


Subz--

Not at all.

What I think is that, in the case of the Pentagon, there was too much risk of colateral damage if a plane was used. FWIW, It's one thing to fly an airliner into 110 story office building, and quite another to to fly the same type of aircraft into a low-rise building like the Pentagon, which is surrounded by buildings and other obsticals that are taller. A 757 is by far not the most manouverable aircraft in the world, and is not designed to accomplish quick directional changes, which would be required in order for a large airliner to hit the building.

As has been stated in the post above, I feel that it all depends on what one defines as a "plane". For our purposes, let's say that a "plane" is a man-made device with fixed wings that flies--in which case a cruise or Phoenix missile qualifies. Everything I have seen, here and elsewhere in the past 5 years leads me to believe that a "piece of ordinance" hit the Pentagon. I have seen quite a bit more video and still photography evidence than has been presented on ATS, including fast frame still and video taken during and just after the building exploded. As a result, I am convinced that, though the building may have been hit by a Plane as we have defined it above, it was NOT a 757. Not even the wire spools sitting on the grass in from of the hole were displaced, and there was no wreckage whatever that would be consistant with the crash of any airliner or private plane. The only debris that was founfd in the area was the anodized strut, and a few small pieces of fiberglass-like material consistant with modern airborn ordinance casings.

The most convincing photo is the one posted in this thread from the Checkpoint camera with the red circle marking the object moving between the camera and the display fighter in the background. Though indistinct, this photo clearly shows a cylindrical object with a "bottle nose". That nose is consistant with a V/GPSG or Laser guidence devices used on both cruise and Phoenix missiles and smart bombs. These devices allow Cruise Missiles to accurately hit a 4' window at a range of 1700 miles.
I'll add that the camera used to take this image had a very wide angle lens; the warped foreground tells you that. What this means is that the checkpoint was closer to the impact point that it appears to be. Interestingly, and as I pointed out in an earlier post, the camera remained steady as the building blew. A 757 would have produced a greater shockwave which would have damaged the checkpoint, and it would likely have been hit by debris. Later in that film, you also see no debris flying anywhere except the dust and stone from the impact site itself.

Folks, all of this just leads me to one place at this juncture, and that place is the preliminary conclusion that the Pentagon was hit by a piece of military ordinance, flying or dropped, and not any type of Civilian Aircraft. WHY it was all done, I don't know. Who planned it, I'm not sure. The purpose of it?---sinister.



new topics

top topics
 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join