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.

 

Confiscated Hotel Video Released...No Plane

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2
The bodies at the trade center were not just burned but pulverized.

That have been may photos of plane parts shown in the numerous 9/11 threads here. But some will deny whatever actual real (not made up 'facts' that some CT'ers here push on a constant basis) proof they have been shown.



What?




posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neon Haze

Originally posted by STolarZ
neonhaze: show me that tail cause I see isht on this movie :>


Here Ya go.

Look closely at the very beginning. You can clearly see an object that looks very much like a tail of a plane.



Then the explosion caused by the fuel in the wings igniting.

Hope that helps,

All the best,

NeoN HaZe.


[edit on 4-12-2006 by Neon Haze]

I looked at this and noticed that in the upper right corner it says GOVERNMENT VIDEO... so after 5 years they decide that this video is ok to release to the public... did the 911 comission see the video? why release it now and if that small triangle is a huge airplane why not release a video that shows something we can determine is a plane? they confiscated all the videos from around the area from all video sources in the area so where are the rest of the videos and what do they show that they still can't release them?
Where is the debris and the other evidence from the area is that still top secret where is the plane pieces or black box or the pentagon security camera footage?
What is the reason to say hey look it is a plane wing in the upper left so that proves it, I can not believe what they have here is actually proof of anything, can you?
Cant they photoshop a plane and put it there with the technology at their disposal?
It was a flying disk, oops we meant to say it is a weather balloon, oops we meant to say it was a test dumbie on a weather balloon... what will they dream up next!



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 10:31 PM
link   
I'm glad to see I'm not the only forum reader who believes 9/11 was not a conspiracy. I like this site, but I always feel like I'm the underdog



posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Im no missile expert, but just have some common knowledge and have seen some videos. This is all just specultation. Missiles come in at very sharp angles, and in this video you should have been able to see the missile if there was one. When a missile is launched its path is usually that of an arch is it not? Therefore a missile does not cruise parallel to the ground and it its target from the side, but rather, comes down from a sharp angle and hits its target on top.
video.google.com...
Furthermore, theres discussion of an impact hole or something. Missiles do not leave impact holes because they blow everything to #. A missile could not have left an impact hole because once it penetrated the building it would have blown up thus destroying the hole which was caused by its entrance. A plane, on the other hand, could have made such a hole because once it penetrates the building it does not explode, the explosion was caused by an impact with the building while a missile would have exploded miliseconds after an impact with the building.

The video does not show a plane because the plane is hidden by the building, which correlates with reports and prior video showing the plane flying at a low altitude which is possible. A missile, however, should have been clear in this video because missiles do not cruise at ground level when you shoot them, they come in at a very sharp angle. Missiles generally hit the top of their target, and in the rare instance that it would come up short and hit the side it would be visible on this video

Lets think about this. Missiles do not travel parallel to the ground because if they did they would not phsycially be able to make it to their target without first hitting something in the way (especially in a city, theres just too many buildings). The first video from the pentagon released immediately after 9/11 showed "something" (i say a plane) impacting the pentagon coming in almost parallel to the ground. A missile is shot straight up to the air and travels at high altitudes, so if a missile had hit the pentagon it would be visible to many, especially on a clear and sunny day like 9/11. Where are the eye witness testimonies and reports of seeing a missile that day? Where would the missile have been shot from? Why would we hit the pentagon, the people and projects it holds are too valuable.

Just dont add up. I say...plane

[edit on 9-12-2006 by Think About IT]

[edit on 9-12-2006 by Think About IT]



posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 04:06 PM
link   
It's funny to see that this thread has reached 6 pages. Isn't it blatantly obvious that what ever you want to believe is what you will believe.

I circle highlighted supporting evidence of what is the official story of events on 911.

I am on the fence as to what actually happened since I was not there and so I can't say for certain.

What I can say is that all the evidence really does point to a plane hitting the pentagon.

Why did they hit the pentagon??

I believe it was because the pentagon is symbol of the American Military. It's a very old fashioned view, and a typical view of an outsider.

What ever you choose to think about 911, please try and have sympathy for the people the dead left behind, in my view these are the real victims of 911.

All the best,

NeoN HaZe.



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 02:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Neon Haze
What I can say is that all the evidence really does point to a plane hitting the pentagon.

NeoN HaZe.


people get so perosnal because there's no evidence support such
you just said it.

how can you say ' evidence points to a plane hitting '

when as stated in various threads there's evidence that suggest otherwise, AS WELL AS evidence that suggests a plane hit.

dont take offense anyone plaese


But if your willing to claim a plane hit the pentagon, simply because you say that blur is 'clearly' a planes tail, jesus.. thankgod your not invovled with 'law'

that BLUR in now way, shape of form definitivley says 'boeing airliner'

so for people to claim as such, is very flawed.

I hate, HATE with a passion people who debate there side because they say this piece of a footage IS A plane.

that FOOTAGE show's NOTHING ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING<
JUST LIKE THE OTHER FOOTAGE SHOWS.

ITS YOU PEOPLE you state ' its a plane look at the footage'
that are making it so damn difficult for the TRUTH To come out.

There's just as much chance that 'blur' is my great aunt betty, riding a whitemountain bike while smoking weed and doing up her shoe laces.

There's a CHANCE its a plane, but it is very incorrect for you to CLAIM it as EVIDENCE of a plane hitting.

The sheer stupidity and gullability of people is why we are in such a god damn mess now, because they are willing to accept what ever is put in front of them....

Think about this,

this footage in no means conflicts with the law suit of zacarus.
So why was it released 5yrs later?

people say its ilelgial to produce footage fro mthe pentagon security camera's..
why? its not like there's a secret UFO base out the front ONLY Security camera's could pick up is there... everyone KNOWS there's camera's...

There's NO EVIDENCE to back up the claim a hijacked boeing hit the pnetagon.

But there's a heck of a load of irregularties in the official story to make one believe we are not being told ALL about that incident.

If you believe that this video shows a boeing airliner, then you do not deserve the ability to be debating on this site.

Your ignorant! plain and simple.

You were 'TOLD' by the govenrment what happened, and you group that with this very dubious video, and decide 'thats proof of what they told me'
when its anything but!



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 05:08 AM
link   
Why bother making expensive stealth planes? All you have to do is turn off the transponder and then the plane will be invisible on radar....

NOT!

And those planes (all four of them) didn't hurry to their targets either. They were flying around in odd patterns, left and right, wasting time. Plenty of time to find them, I would think. If I was a terrorist and hijacked a plane in order to crash it into a building, I wouldn't waste any time. I would fly directly to the target.

Check this out:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 09:50 PM
link   
Think of the hundreds of planes in the air. To pick out the flights that are possibly highjacked is almost impossible in the time frame given. Time was wasted by the terroirsits because it takes (not that much but nonethless) a legitimate amount of time to physically highjack the plane



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 10:57 PM
link   
Hijacking a plane would not take long.
the whole idea of a hijacking is to do it, do it quick and be in charge before people can realise whats going on.

AS soon as transponders and such are off, or planes deviate from flight paths. they immediately stand out on radar screens.

AS soon as that first plane hit, it should of been immeidaetly known any plane deviating from its flight course, and not responding WAS A TERRORIST THREAT.

I do believe that the planes were hijacked by arabs...

But I do believe the government was aware the plane, and did nothing when the warnings signs became aparent.

how else do you desrcibe the moving of military jets to canada to watch russian games in the days before sep11?
why do we need jets tow atch russia war games?

Why were no planes scrambled when 2 KNOWN hijacked planes were heading towards DC?

Why did president bush sit in that seat while it was happening, only to immediately start writing his speach, and talking to the nation...

he's the PRESIDENT he should of been immeidaely out of that room confering with all heads of departments and taking immediate steps to protect everyone and everything.

WHO TOLD PRESIDENT BUSH
'' ILL TAKE CARE OF IT, WHEN THE ATTACK BEGINS ''

obviously, when he was told, he had been advised to just sit in, and let the 'man' incharge handle it...

This is why he was in Florida.

days before sept11, Jeb Bush declared marshall law in Florida.
Bush was schedualed to be in florida during the attacks.

MArtial law was in place, incase any 'other' attacks, the governmetn wernt aware of would be taking place against the leader...

this is why martial law was in place.
they wernt CERTAIN they knew of every plan on this attack, and there was a CHANCE something could be planned against bush..
so they decllared martial law to be safe.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 07:08 PM
link   
This video does not show much

it is so much blurred that anything can be happening in the video.
like i said before.

the triangle that is comming by is to slow to be a plane (these planes go a lot faster than cars even when landing)

what do we see on the video?
an explosion

what can we learn fro this video?
not much

so far i cant find any proof of a plane hitting the pentagon.
but i cant find proof of a missile eighter.

it seems hard to convince people on the basis of speculation for both sides

but not having any real evidence of a plane hitting this building seems odd to me



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neon Haze


Here Ya go.

Look closely at the very beginning. You can clearly see an object that looks very much like a tail of a plane.



Then the explosion caused by the fuel in the wings igniting.

Hope that helps,

All the best,

NeoN HaZe.


[edit on 4-12-2006 by Neon Haze]




I am sorry but this video shows notting clearly
how can you say you see a tail of a plane clearly when notting is clear here ?

like some one said it could be anything, even the monster of log ness



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 07:36 PM
link   
Can someone please post the higher quality MPG or AVI version of the video? It would be a lot easier to analyze the frames. And I'm not talking about just converting the flash file.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by HybridEB
Can someone please post the higher quality MPG or AVI version of the video? It would be a lot easier to analyze the frames. And I'm not talking about just converting the flash file.


There is no "high quality" anything. The version released was the version that was first viewed on CNN. This same version has been seen by numerous people I know when it aired on CNN - and they stated to me the quality is the same as to it being put onto the internet.

The quality is poor, the plane shows NO CLEAR EVIDENCE that a plane DID or DID NOT hit the Pentagon. [and don't try and argue this with me because you will be making HUGE assumptions that you cannot back up].

I first broke the news on ATS regarding the video being released - and despite my beliefs about 9|11 and some sort of 'inside job complicity' - there is NO evidence within this video that can prove or disprove either side of the argument.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 10:17 PM
link   
*sigh* I assume we'll be having this debate when I'm in the grave and seniors in highschool are studying it.

SOP for dealing with terrorists is to let them fly around and land the plane (they've got to get fuel somewhere) - and gnab them, then - when the plane won't fall out of the sky with a couple hundred passengers onboard. You can also take into account that the concept of a terrorist slamming a plane into a building was not exactly considered probable - usually they wanted a bargain - trade the passengers for some prisoners or something. That was the motive of every hijacking up until that point. So, yeah - we were probably a little bit confused when the first plane hit, and trying to figure out what in the hell was going on.

Also, civilian aircraft experience a number of failures rather routinely - because civilians are lazy (sorry - y'all are). So, the failure of a transponder wouldn't be cause to order an intercept (something a civie air traffic controller cannot do - it's up to the propper military chain of command to decide whether or not that aircraft is to be engaged). Nor would deviation from course - as a transponder and the avionics equipment could malfunction at the same time, from the same cause.

Also take into account that we'd never had a coordinated hijacking such as 9/11 - we didn't know that there were other hijacked aircraft.

Now - if there is ANY conspiracy to 9/11 it might be the events surrounding flight 93. It is possible that the intercepting aircraft were ordered to engage. Then the passengers immortilized as heroes and a symbol for the American People.

Otherwise - I think most of you all who beleive 9/11 was conspired by our own government need to be placed BACK into whatever institution you escaped from. Clynical paranoid schitzophrenics aren't this pathological - and yes, I do know one... and he swears to God that the neighbors are moving the rocks in his driveway around at night..... but he doesn't jump to some conclusion that they are conspiring with the air force and trying to get them to bomb him to kingdom come.

Jeeminy Christmas....



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 11:43 PM
link   
There doesnt have to be a conspiracy.

The government didnt need to do this.

IT was planned and organisied by alqaeda.

The Government knew about it before hand and sat on their hands.

there is so muc hevidence and so many people out there coming forward about this...


Why do you think the government is so willing to allow 'conspiracy' theories out on the media stage?

because outrageous idea's like remote controlle planes, or holograms, or staged attacks are so fairy tail.. that anything said 'against' the attacks of that day will just be grouped to gether with those outrageous claims.

Are Insider governments arent saying THEY did it, or that holograms were used?

NO, Insiders are all saying that bush had prior knowledge.


why arent we hearing about THIS ON THE NEWS?

instead we are seeing all the other CRACKPOT idea's which are obvioulsy stuipd in their own right!



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
There doesnt have to be a conspiracy.

The government didnt need to do this.

IT was planned and organisied by alqaeda.

The Government knew about it before hand and sat on their hands.

there is so muc hevidence and so many people out there coming forward about this...


Why do you think the government is so willing to allow 'conspiracy' theories out on the media stage?

because outrageous idea's like remote controlle planes, or holograms, or staged attacks are so fairy tail.. that anything said 'against' the attacks of that day will just be grouped to gether with those outrageous claims.

Are Insider governments arent saying THEY did it, or that holograms were used?

NO, Insiders are all saying that bush had prior knowledge.


why arent we hearing about THIS ON THE NEWS?

instead we are seeing all the other CRACKPOT idea's which are obvioulsy stuipd in their own right!





I really appreciate the profound post, No I really do.........

Show some evidence that backs up everything you just said. Or better yet, show me something that disproves anything that "conspiracy theorists" have come up with (besides the Hologram B.S, Alien Rays, etc. that have plagued the 9|11 Truth Movement), and then maybe more people will listen.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 12:27 AM
link   
At what side of the pentagon is the Doubletree Hotel stationed at?

(The answer will or will not move me to my next question)



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Gladly


Refer to my two posts below.

But please wait a while.

I have just finished reading through a few books i picked up last week

and there's an absolute cave of information, quotes and so forth im finding links and direct reports off.

Gimme a few days to compose this and ill even U2U

www.abovetopsecret.com...'
politics.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by TruthSeekerMP

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
There doesnt have to be a conspiracy.

The government didnt need to do this.

IT was planned and organisied by alqaeda.

The Government knew about it before hand and sat on their hands.

there is so muc hevidence and so many people out there coming forward about this...


Why do you think the government is so willing to allow 'conspiracy' theories out on the media stage?

because outrageous idea's like remote controlle planes, or holograms, or staged attacks are so fairy tail.. that anything said 'against' the attacks of that day will just be grouped to gether with those outrageous claims.

Are Insider governments arent saying THEY did it, or that holograms were used?

NO, Insiders are all saying that bush had prior knowledge.


why arent we hearing about THIS ON THE NEWS?

instead we are seeing all the other CRACKPOT idea's which are obvioulsy stuipd in their own right!





I really appreciate the profound post, No I really do.........

Show some evidence that backs up everything you just said. Or better yet, show me something that disproves anything that "conspiracy theorists" have come up with (besides the Hologram B.S, Alien Rays, etc. that have plagued the 9|11 Truth Movement), and then maybe more people will listen.


How about common f'n sense...


Holograms?
c'mon.. why go to so much trouble when simply taking an old used plane is so damn easy

explosives?
if they did this, why blow up the towers when the gold trucks underneath arent out yet?
why bring them down? surely two planes slamming in is enough?
why risk contamination of asbestos in NYC?

missle at the pentagon?
there's to many witnesses that could say they saw a plane shoot a missle then fly off.




Jesus..
Alqaeda is real...
They had been planning since the early 90's to use planes as missles..
Yousef was the mastermind.

America didnt need to attack themselves..
Look at oklahoma, wtc93, cole...
it was clear that the terrorists were quiet capable of attacking..

Bush was receiving intel from the second he took office of something brewing that was going to be 'big'

why would he need to orchestrate it?
serioulsy?

All he had to do was sit back and let the attack happen.. why go to the troulbe of attacking yourself when youve got a perfectly capable enemy? claim ignorance and boom youve got pretext for war.

its simple.

the reason they are giving air time to missle theories, explosive theories, hologram bs... is because all it does is DECREDIT anyone who can even come close.

Your either a believer, or a conspiracy theoriest.

and being some conspiracy theorists say missles, holograms, explosives lasers, remote flight and all that bs, all it does is give OTHER theorists a very 'stupid' image, at the same time giving the people who 'follow' the story more ammo in pushing the official story.



I mean jesus, everyones looking at what happened during the attack as the thing that will bring down this government.

They have moulded you perfectly..
while your looking at what HAPPENED..
no ones friggen looking at HOW IT CAME TO HAPPEN IN THE FIRST PLACE!


Think about it.

if you can prove that the government activley KNEW of the attack that was coming, but didnt act to PROTECT the citizens... it doesnt matter WHAT HAPPENED ON THE DAY! they didnt do their duty, for reasons that obvioulsy benefited them, above their citizens.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join