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.

 

FBI to release video from DoubleTree Hotel that will show plane hitting the Pentagon

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
I thought they said that they couldn't find any black boxes from any of the planes..


Yup thems the ones I mean




posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 11:01 PM
link   
Conspiracy theory aside, it says alot about a political party that use this kind of material to try to win an election..... just sick.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by WolfofWar
They're campaign that they seeded throughout the internet with the "no plane hit the pentagon" disinfo is about to come to a close. People bought it hook line and sinker, sucked up every word the cointelpro agents said, and now the rugs going to be permenantly swept up underneath all conspiracy theoriests permenantly discrediting them and ANY theory they have.

Bravo NSA, bravo.


Makes you wonder what wasn't being looked into during all that distraction, doesn't it?



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 06:42 AM
link   
Someone get a camera on the Loose Change kids when they see this one! Lol.

In no way will this prove the conspiracy 100% wrong without a doubt - I don't expect that will happen. It's just going to take the no plane thoery out of the equation.

No doubt people already have their mind made up that it's doctored without having seen it



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 07:16 AM
link   
I'm with the good DoctorFungi on this one, and for a very good reason. When the originial video of the hit was released back in 2002 or 2003, you couldn't really tell what hit the Pentagon. That is until the object hit the building itself. I, and probably many more, had noticed the tail of the fuselage with the tail coming out from the smoke plume. Then it most certainly could not have been a missile that hit the Pentagon. This is because there would have been nothing visible from the missile on the tape.

Plus.

What is it that makes people believe that this next video will be of a higher quailty? This is because the original pics were so grainy that you could not really tell what it was that hit the building in the first place.

[edit on 11/4/2006 by gimmefootball400]



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 07:30 AM
link   
Is it really all that hard to believe that a plane hit the pentagon on 9/11?

I guess it's possible to fabricate a video showing the plane hit, but I would think that a professional video analyst to tell if it's a fake.

[edit on 4/11/2006 by SportyMB]



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by SportyMB
Is it really all that hard to believe that a plane hit the pentagon on 9/11?


No, it's not hard to believe

But what is hard to believe is a below average pilot that was denied rental of a Cesna being able to fly this airplane and pull of near impossible maneuvers and fly steady 20 feet off the ground which is impossible for a 200,000 pound airplane only to squeeze the plane into a hole smaller than what the plane should have created while leaving no damage from where the tail and wings should have hit and if that wasn't good enough, leave no plane debris behind, leave no black box, no damage to the lawn, and magically save some identification from the terrorists on board even though the fireball that erupted from the crash was supposedly hot enough to disintegrate the plane completely and that's forgetting the fact that this so perfectly timed, thought out, and executed attack left out the small detail to hit the side of the pentagon where Rumsfeld was making predictions of terrorist attacks on that very same day instead of the virtually un-inhabited under renovation side.

I love government stories. They're hilarious.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Someone else pointed out if the release the video one week from today (or yesterday) the elections will be over with, done, history so I don't see how this video is going to have an impact on the mid terms.

IF, however, Monday morning the FBI releases the video then there is a different light to the issue.

The reality of the sitation is the total number of people who believe, suspect or even consider the possibility that something other than a plane hit the Pentagon is so small I doubt it will impact the mid terms at all.

The VAST majority of the voters in this country have not considered anything but the 9/11 commission report. To think there is some huge group of millions of people (it takes MANY millions to swing an election) holding their breath waiting to see if a plane is clearly seen on the video to prove one way or the other that a plane actually did/did not hit the Pentagon is not realistic. A few thousand maybe a few hundred thousand TOPS is more like it.


Springer...



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
Someone else pointed out if the release the video one week from today (or yesterday) the elections will be over with, done, history so I don't see how this video is going to have an impact on the mid terms.

IF, however, Monday morning the FBI releases the video then there is a different light to the issue.

The reality of the sitation is the total number of people who believe, suspect or even consider the possibility that something other than a plane hit the Pentagon is so small I doubt it will impact the mid terms at all.

The VAST majority of the voters in this country have not considered anything but the 9/11 commission report. To think there is some huge group of millions of people (it takes MANY millions to swing an election) holding their breath waiting to see if a plane is clearly seen on the video to prove one way or the other that a plane actually did/did not hit the Pentagon is not realistic. A few thousand maybe a few hundred thousand TOPS is more like it.


Springer...


This is true Springer, but your missing the fact that the 9/11 conspiracy stuff has gone mainstream now, even if its being mocked. South Park, Fox News, MSNBC, all have had stories or shows about it. Its the perfect time to discredit it by revealing theyre disinfo plant within the CTers and discredit them permenantly. But the more important factor of this video, I feel, isnt to discredit CTs, but infact it is to reinstill the McCarthian fear that people felt post 9/11. Show them the plane hitting, a video nobodies seen before, to reinstill terror and fear into voters minds, because them terrorist loving democrats cant stop a new attack from happening, but these "republicans" sure can.

Its a vote mining ploy first, and a massive debunking of 9/11 CTs second.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Springer,

What is there pointing towards a plane hitting the Pentagon? What evidence is there? Is it just because the government said so? Is that why so many people believe it?

Let's examine this for a minute..

There have been two videos released. The first video, and the gas station video. The first video isn't anywhere near clear enough to determine what that object is. That isn't evidence for either side. Basically, it's useless, agree? Toss it out.

Gas station video. It doesn't show a plane or a missile. You see a flash, clearly from the explosion, but you can't tell what hit the Pentagon. Again, useless, toss it out.

The hole in the side of the building. The size does not match up with a plane. Is this proof a missile hit? No. But it certain supports the missile theory more than the plane.

The light poles. The plane supposedly knocked them over. That'd be reasonable had the light poles been more than two feet away from where they were standing originally. A plane traveling at more than 400 mph is going to do more than just pop the light poles out of the ground. This isn't proof that a missile hit and these light poles were popped out by some other device, but it doesn't support the plane theory either.

The lack of plane debris. Looking at so many other plane crashes, how are we supposed to believe that not on one occassion, not two, but four times on the same day, there is no plane debris remaining? All planes explode when they crash. All planes don't turn into nothing when they explode. This supports a missile theory.

The lawn. No damage. If a plane was flying low enough to hit the Pentagon like it supposedly did, there would have been damage on the lawn from the engines. The engines have alot of power going through them. I'm almost certain there is some kind of bursts of air or something along those lines coming out of the engine that would have damaged the lawn at least a little bit. To be fair, this isn't conclusive evidence, so this supports neither argument.

Hotel video and black boxes never shown. Why? Why can't we listen to the black boxes? Why has it taken so long for the hotel video to come out? Why did it take so long for the gas station video to be released? It can't be for "respect to the families". We can release other black boxes and dis-respect those families, but not these? Why? This may not support a missile theory, but it certainly doesn't help the plane theory.

So, in conclusion, what supports a plane theory? Just because the government said so? Point out one thing that strongly supports the plane theory. Don't show me that one piece of debris that was light enough to be carried away by hand. Give me something conclusive.

We'll never really know what hit the Pentagon that day, but we can use process of elimination. There's two options. Plane or something else. The "something else" would clearly mean a cover up by the government. I'm not trying to prove that something else hit, but instead, trying to dis-prove the plane theory. Examining the official story, and looking at pictures and videos, there is absolutely nothing conclusive that points towards a plane. Most of the evidence points towards something else.

We can't just take the government's word for everything. They told us Iraq had weapons of mass destruction too. You can't pick and choose what you want to hear and don't want to hear. You can criticize them for Iraq but you can't even consider their involvement in 9/11? They can make up false intelligence to start a war that has turned out far worse than the War On Terror just for oil, and you can believe that they made it up for oil, but you can't consider making up a fake attack to start a war for oil? That's hypocritical at the very best. Our government isn't perfect. They aren't innocent. Like Franklin Roosevelt said, in politics, nothing happens by accident, if it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 12:00 PM
link   
DIB,

A jack load of eye witnesses.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by DickBinBush
So, in conclusion, what supports a plane theory? Just because the government said so? Point out one thing that strongly supports the plane theory. Don't show me that one piece of debris that was light enough to be carried away by hand. Give me something conclusive.


Why is it that people don't believe in a plane because there is "not enought" evidence, yet believe in "something else" for which there is no evidence?


There were no missile or hologram parts found at all, and there was much more than one peice of debris found.

www.911myths.com...

While there may not be "enough" evidence of a plane crashing there for some people, that is the only thing that there is any evidence of.

Why the double standard of evidence?



[edit on 4-11-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
DIB,

A jack load of eye witnesses.


This is conclusive evidence?

Eye witnesses are useless. People will see something, and their mind will carry it and make it into something it's not. Especially through all the terror and shock at the time.

It's nice how on TV, we only heard from the people who supposedly saw a plane, but in the mainstream media, the people who saw something else are ignored.

Ever consider the possibility they were paid off to say that a plane hit? I'm not saying they were, but you can't trust eye witness reports. If you are going to trust one, you have to trust all. Again, picking and choosing doesn't make something true. This is not conclusive evidence.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind

Why is it that people don't believe in a plane because there is "not enought" evidence, yet believe in "something else" for which there is no evidence?


There were no missile or hologram parts found at all, and there was much more than one peice of debris found.

www.911myths.com...

While there may not be "enough" evidence of a plane crashing there for some people, that is the only thing that there is any evidence of.

Why the double standard of evidence?


No evidence? The very fact that the government isn't telling us everything is enough evidence. But then, the light poles, lack of debris, the hole, none of it makes sense. That's not enough for even speculation?

And, I checked out that site, nice pictures. I noticed that they have on there the one piece of debris I referred to in my original post and a plane rim that could have easily been planted in the construction area of the Pentagon that got hit. It's awesome how they show both of those things about four times each, just using different angles. Is that your supporting evidence? It's pretty weak if that's all.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 12:13 PM
link   
You asked a question and I answered you. What you decide to do with the evidence available on this particular event is your business. But that is evidence. It just floors me how people can dismiss evidence when it doesn't fit their theory.

By the way, no one's produced any hard evidence on this missile thingy. At least the plane in the building theory has witnesses.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind

Originally posted by DickBinBush
So, in conclusion, what supports a plane theory? Just because the government said so? Point out one thing that strongly supports the plane theory. Don't show me that one piece of debris that was light enough to be carried away by hand. Give me something conclusive.


Why is it that people don't believe in a plane because there is "not enought" evidence, yet believe in "something else" for which there is no evidence?


There were no missile or hologram parts found at all, and there was much more than one peice of debris found.

www.911myths.com...

While there may not be "enough" evidence of a plane crashing there for some people, that is the only thing that there is any evidence of.

Why the double standard of evidence?



[edit on 4-11-2006 by LeftBehind]


Well ofcourse leftbehind its because there was a massive coverup where they removed every piece of wreckage and replaced it with all plane parts.

Like I said, I think the pentagon is a disinfo project to discredit the WTC issues, but more importantly, the REAL conspiracy of what the government was doing before and after.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 12:24 PM
link   
I believe what will happen is that they will release another very short film which may be of low quality which will show a plane of some sort striking the pentagon, even though I'm firmly planted in the 'no 757' thanks to what I've researched through ats and some well put points by the likes of John Lear, I think for them to bury the whole conspiracy theory surrounding the pentagon crash, it will have to be proven from this footage that is in fact Flight 77 and not any other aircraft or 'type of'. Therefore if they are to bury the CT I expect we will be able to clearly distinguish every part of Flight 77 including engines, wings and of course windows.

Does anyone think the media will pick up on what has been raised in this thread already, the fact that they have had this 'proof' for over five years and have only decided to release the footage now?



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
You asked a question and I answered you. What you decide to do with the evidence available on this particular event is your business. But that is evidence. It just floors me how people can dismiss evidence when it doesn't fit their theory.

By the way, no one's produced any hard evidence on this missile thingy. At least the plane in the building theory has witnesses.


Just like you are dismissing everything I've said right?



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 12:33 PM
link   
You know what why don't all you CTers and 911 lie seekers go join al quaeda and be extremists. You are just as useless and dangerous to america as the real terrorists in my opinion.

Didn't anyone see during the 5 year aniversary, the memorial service held for children of a school that were killed on one of the planes? They were on a feild trip, when their plane was hijacked and crashed. Yes i'm sure that little boy's parents agreed to let the government slaughter their child, to further advance the NWO, start WW3 and go steal all the middle easterners oil. right? give me a [snip] break.

CTers do not live in reality. They want for an insane (and impossible) theory to be true so bad, that they will deny any rational thought, or any evidence that does not fit their agenda. You know what this tape wont even make a difference. It's not even good enough for you guys that they gov realeased the tape at all, CTers will complain that the images have been doctored and have their minds made up that "the tape is completley fake and disinfo" before they even see it. Then once the tape is released they will be like "this is not conclusive and further prooves that 9/11 was an inside job".

These reality deniers truley make me sick to my stomach.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 12:33 PM
link   
No, I'm not dismissing anything you say. But lightpoles do not a missile make. And while you're saying "lack of debris" as a point against a plane, I'm going to have to say to you - RIGHT BACK AT YA! I haven't seen anybody hauling around a display of the missile debris recovered at the Pentagon. And then this one - because the government is not telling us everything that's enough evidence. You can't be serious. It might be indicative of SOMETHING, but you can't just pull out of your hat what that is.

Like I said - no hard evidence. But rest assured, I do not dismiss things. I have in my file, bent lightpoles, moved taxis and no videos...for whatever that's worth.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join