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.

 

Weren't there any cameras on the roof of the Pentagon?

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2008 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky
PROPAGANDA!

I'm sure you've all seen the t-shirts, CD covers, banners, etc. circulating through the muslim world showing the WTC towers burning and collapsing.


I think that has to be 1 of the worst excuses for them not to release the photos and viodeos i have ever seen.




posted on May, 22 2008 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by darkbluesky
 


So, they didn't think of this for the 24 hours or more that every single channel on the planet was airing the second plane crash into WTC 2 over and over and over and over again?

Another weak excuse if you ask me.



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Showing the videos would only strengthen the American resolve against terrorism.

Respect for the dead????
These people just demolished two buildings with +/- 4000 people still inside!! The logic can't get any more convoluted.

Peace



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Lets check out some of the cameras.

1. Pentagon cameras.

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...

2. Navy Annex.

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...

3. Gas Station.

i114.photobucket.com...

4. Gas Station cameras removed.

i114.photobucket.com...

5. Sheraton Hotel.

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...

6. Sheraton camera removed.

i114.photobucket.com...



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Furthermore, if we really had respect for the dead, then why did every news station and magazine show images of US citizens falling to their death from the WTC, showing the footage every 5 minutes and printing the photos in hundreds of thousands of editions of newspapers and magazines for all to see? Why was footage of the two planes crashing into the WTC played constantly? What the difference between showing those passengers dying? Nobody was too concerned about respect for the dead then, so why now? Why is it OK to watch the planes hit the WTC but not the Pentagon?

Many people call 9/11 truthers nut jobs but seriously, you'd have to be a nut job not to wonder why over over 80 separate video surveillance tapes were confiscated by the FBI and have not been released. I don't care what you believe, but anybody must find that very odd and curious?



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
reply to post by darkbluesky
 


So, they didn't think of this for the 24 hours or more that every single channel on the planet was airing the second plane crash into WTC 2 over and over and over and over again?

Another weak excuse if you ask me.



The damage was done. All that video was out, They couldn't "un" broadcast it.

The govt has sequestered it's own video and photographic eveidence, and some of the surveillence video from surrounding properties that had not already been seen by the public.

One more thing Griff - Im not making excuses for anybody, I'm offering theories for discussion.

[edit on 5/22/2008 by darkbluesky]



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr LoveRespect for the dead????
These people just demolished two buildings with +/- 4000 people still inside!! The logic can't get any more convoluted.

Peace


I don't work from the same premise as you. I believe the most obvious and likely theory first and try to find theoris that fit. Therefore there is no convolution of logic. I dont see proof, or believe, anyone demolished two buildings with 4000 people inside. I see proof and believe terrorists flew two airliners into two buildings.

You have obviously decided that the governement was responsible and you proceed from that premise.



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alethia
Furthermore, if we really had respect for the dead, then why did every news station and magazine show images of US citizens falling to their death from the WTC, showing the footage every 5 minutes and printing the photos in hundreds of thousands of editions of newspapers and magazines for all to see? Why was footage of the two planes crashing into the WTC played constantly? What the difference between showing those passengers dying? Nobody was too concerned about respect for the dead then, so why now? Why is it OK to watch the planes hit the WTC but not the Pentagon?


Please see my response to Griff above.



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love
Showing the videos would only strengthen the American resolve against terrorism.



Maybe this proves that none of the tapes show anything, eh?

Oh, I forgot, if they don't release any tapes, it means they're hiding something.

And if they DO release them, and they show nothing, it means they doctored the tapes to hide the cruise missle/Skyhawk/Global Hawk/flyover, or whatever screwy theory CTerz have about the Pentagon.




posted on May, 22 2008 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky
You have obviously decided that the governement was responsible and you proceed from that premise.



We some of us do research to find the truth instead of just believing what we ahve been told to believe.

You obviously beleive the official story even though lots of reports and evidnece question it.

We have lots of evindece that the government had plenty of warnings from domestic and foreign intell agencies but did nothign to stop the attacks.

We have lots of reports that neither the planes or fires casued the towers to collapse. Also no plane hit Building 7.

We have no photos or videos (released) that show Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. We also have no official rpeorts matching parts found to any of the 9/11 planes.



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 05:33 PM
link   

The damage was done. All that video was out, They couldn't "un" broadcast it.

The govt has sequestered it's own video and photographic eveidence, and some of the surveillence video from surrounding properties that had not already been seen by the public.

One more thing Griff - Im not making excuses for anybody, I'm offering theories for discussion.

[edit on 5/22/2008 by darkbluesky]


So you're saying that if there wasn't any public footage of the two planes hitting the WTC Towers, or if the government could, they would not allow anyone to watch it? They'd censor it?

9/11 is supposedly the reason we're in Iraq. If you're going to try to get support for a war based on an event, you should at least allow people to see what happened and why you feel so strongly that this is the reason for going to war. Right now, our taxes are being used to fund a war based on an attack on the WTC and Pentagon which we're hit by planes hijacked by terrorists. I do believe planes hit the WTC because I've seen it. I do not believe a plane hit the Pentagon because I haven't seen it.

I've been asked to support and fund a war, but only been given 50% of the facts for the reason for the war.



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Anyone who believes witholding evidence (video at that) is for the better is well either a fool. or yet another ATS disinformationist.

And there sure seem to be a lot of them floating around thesedays, god bless 'em
I want to hug everyone of them until their eyes pop from the love.

"EVERYONE LOVE EVERYONE!"


Z



posted on May, 23 2008 @ 02:41 AM
link   
If the plane in Shakesville reached its destination, would there be any video footage of the plane hitting the Whitehouse???? We LIVE in an age of surveillance!!!! THis technology is everywhere!! Why would there not be video of a Plane hitting the headquaters of the largest military industrial complex in the world???
The fact is, if the government wanted to, or felt the need to,
they could very easily make the video of the plane hitting the Pentagon available to the public. The don't, because they can't!!!! It doesn't exist!!
I promise all of the sheeple out there, you will NEVER see the footage of a plane hitting the Pentagon. It doesn't exist. It is a fairytale. The whole discussion we are all involved in will be a college course someday. Or at least the answer on a test.
1.)Q: What was the biggest conspiracy ever carried out by a country against its own citizens?
A: 911
2.)Q How did the perpitrators get away with such a huge conspiracy?
A: No one could believe that a government could do such a thing to its own citizens.
3.)Q:What was George W. Bush offically charged with after the independant 911 investigation results were admitted as evidence in a court of law?
A:Crimes against humanity.

In fifty years your grandchildren will NOT be able to graduate college if they can't answer these easy questions.



posted on May, 23 2008 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
We some of us do research to find the truth instead of just believing what we ahve been told to believe.


It's insulting to suggest all skeptics of the conspiracy theories do no research. I have researched the Pentagon attack in depth. There are many unanswered questions and suspicious findings, but there is also a great deal of hard evidence of an airplane crash.


You obviously beleive the official story even though lots of reports and evidnece question it.


Yes, alot of reports and theories question it, some are even compelling, but IMO none disprove it.


We have lots of evindece that the government had plenty of warnings from domestic and foreign intell agencies but did nothign to stop the attacks.



1) Who is "we"
2) What do you suggest "we" could have done to stop the attacks?
3) How could "we" have stopped "ourselves" from attacking "ourselves"...correct me if I'm wrong, but you have made many many post suggesting that 9/11 was an inside job. Most refer to the obvious lack of an airplane at the Pentagon. Would you care to clarify your position on whether 9/11 was...

a) an authentic terrorist attack;
b) a US govt set-up terrorist attack; or
c) a US governmnet inside job?



We have lots of reports that neither the planes or fires casued the towers to collapse. Also no plane hit Building 7.


We also have reports that state the planes AND subsequent fires caused the collapse of the WTC towers.


We have no photos or videos (released) that show Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. We also have no official rpeorts matching parts found to any of the 9/11 planes.


True. But this doesn't prove that AA77 didnt crash at the Pentagon.



posted on May, 23 2008 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky
There are many unanswered questions and suspicious findings, but there is also a great deal of hard evidence of an airplane crash.


What hard evidence?


Yes, alot of reports and theories question it, some are even compelling, but IMO none disprove it.


Well there is enough evidence that question the official story to prove reasonable doubt.


1) Who is "we"
2) What do you suggest "we" could have done to stop the attacks?
3) correct me if I'm wrong, but you have made many many post suggesting that 9/11 was an inside job.


1. Anyone doing research can find the information on the warnings.

2. The government should have raised the security level, which would have stopped the hijackers that were flagged at the airport.

3. I never stated that 9/1 was an inside job.

[qote] We also have reports that state the planes AND subsequent fires caused the collapse of the WTC towers.

No, actually only 1 report, the NIST report. All other agencies disagree with NIST.


True. But this doesn't prove that AA77 didnt crash at the Pentagon.


So what proves that AA77 DID hit the Pentagon?




[edit on 23-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 23 2008 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
1. Anyone doing research can find the information on the warnings.

2. The government should have raised the security level, which would have stopped the hijackers that were flagged at the airport.

3. I never stated that 9/1 was an inside job.

[edit on 23-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]


See, this is where I get confused.

You state that there were plenty of warning signs before 9/11 and they should have been acted upon. This indicates you believe there was a terrorist attack on 9/11.

But in all of the posts listed below you make it clear that you don't believe an airplane crashed at the pentagon which CLEARY means there was no terrorist attack and that the damage that occured at the Pentagon on 9/11 was caused by planted explosives or some kind of projectile other than an airplane which rules out Al Queda or any other Islamist terror group.

www.abovetopsecret.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> www.abovetopsecret.com...


You might want to do more research about what the walls were made of and how thick they were. Oh and do not forget the bomb proof windows and Kevlar lining.

Also that the a 757's nose is made of composite so it would have been destroyed and not made it through the wall, most of the rest of the plane is made of thin aluminum.

Wall of the Pentagon structure.



www.abovetopsecret.com...

Well a few things.

1. The altitude and speed the pilots were flying at would have probably destroyed the engines in a short time.

2. The jet blast from the plane at the Pentagon would have blasted people and cars.




www.abovetopsecret.com...



Well thats why i am doing research. But its hard when the agencies involved do not want to release information.

As far as flight 77 the FAA registration record shows it being destroyed but not how, when or where.

If the governemt is not behind something or covering something why wont they simply release all the information?



There are literally scores more that "question the official story"..."question the official story"...."question the official story"

You obviously don't believe the official story, and you obviously don't believe AA77 crashed at the Pentagon...so how the hell do your statements about warning signs of an impending terrorist attack have any relevance to your theories/beliefs regarding an iside job.

I've never seen you state 9/11 was an inside job, but every post I've seen from you clearly indicates your doubt regarding the presence of an airplane.

To most folks, no airplane = inside job.

What does no airplane mean to you?


[edit on 5/23/2008 by darkbluesky]

[edit on 5/23/2008 by darkbluesky]



posted on May, 23 2008 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky
You state that there were plenty of warning signs before 9/11 and they should have been acted upon. This indicates you believe there was a terrorist attack on 9/11.


NO, it does not mean that i believe there was or was not a terrorist attack. It simple means the governemnt had lots of warnings and did not react.


But in all of the posts listed below you make it clear that you don't believe an airplane crashed at the pentagon which CLEARY means there was no terrorist attack and that the damage that occured at the Pentagon on 9/11 was caused by planted explosives or some kind of projectile other than an airplane which rules out Al Queda or any other Islamist terror group.


NO, i did not state or make it clear that i believe that no plane hit the Pentagon. I am simply stating information and facts. Also stating what infomration and fact we do not have.

I stated nothing about explosives or any projectile.

You should really read the post before respinding with something that is not even stated in my post.


You obviously don't believe the official story, and you obviously don't believe AA77 crashed at the Pentagon...so how the hell do your statements about warning signs of an impending terrorist attack have any relevance to your theories/beliefs regarding an iside job.


I do not believe the official story due to my education, experience, and common sense. I never stated that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon, i simple stated there is no evidnece released that shows AA77 hitting the Pentagon.



To most folks, no airplane = inside job.


Well to any person with basic intelligence and common sense, no airplane simply means no prove of an airplane not an inside job.




[edit on 23-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well to any person with basic intelligence and common sense, no airplane simply means no prove of an airplane not an inside job.

[edit on 23-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]


Please help us people with below average intelligence and no common sense....

Why do you demand proof? When someone asks for proof of something, it usually indicates they have doubts about, or complete disbelief of what's being alleged. In this case, that AA77 crashed at the pentagon. If you believe this is what happened why do you need better proof than the pictures of AA airplane parts at the scene?

If you don't believe AA77 crashed at the Pentagon...why the hell do you make statements about warning singns not be caught and acted upon?

Ultima, what's your opinion regarding who orchestrated 9/11 and who carried it out?

What's your opinion regarding AA77 or not AA77?

Here's what I believe....Airplanes definitely crashed at the WTC, Pentagon and in Shanksville. They were flown by arab terrorists. It's possible the terrorists may have had the tacit backing of elements within our government. Its also possible they had no backing, but the plan was known to elements within our government and allowed to happen. It's also possible it was exactly what it appered to be.

I don't know which of these scenarios is closest to the truth, but I know this....Airplanes crashed, buildings collapsed because of the crashes (not because of explosives), and people died.

I have a terrible gut feeling that the government new about these attacks in general terms (no exact date...no exact targets) and did nothing to stop them because of the doors it would open.

So how 'bout it Ultima?... Tell us what you think so we can have a better dialouge than arguing about jet blast....fragile composite nose cones, the steel to aluminum ratio in fighet jets and passenger jets, the differences between 737 and 757 wheels, 3 digit vs. 4 digit tail numbers, and what you did say....and what you didn't say.

Deal?



[edit on 5/24/2008 by darkbluesky]

[edit on 5/24/2008 by darkbluesky]



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Nice work on those pics. Can't tell you how amazed I am just to see these photos of the cameras and removed cameras. You should be one of the 911 investigaters along with Ivan, and then we'd really have a public case against those criminals.

Z



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum

Originally posted by talisman
So what your saying is that the Headquarters of the United States Military was only prepared for a Brinks Heist? Not believable at all! Of course they had proper video reference of fast moving aerial vehicles.

I mean how else in a projected war would the Pentagon be attacked??


C'mon, if the enemy is close enough to pose for photos outside the Pentagon the war is long over. It sounds like you expect a heroic last stand to be made Alamo style from the Pentagon walls and although it might be nice to have glossy prints of an incoming hellfire type missile I fail to see the point - radar works much better for the function a lot of people seem to expect the cameras to be serving.

You might, one day, have to accept that an enemy attacked you from within your own borders using your own everyday machines as weapons.



That reply makes no sense. Are you saying that they had over 80 cameras that were ONLY DESIGNED FOR AN ATTACK THROUGH THE FRONT DOOR??? Alamo? What on earth does that have to do with just making sense of all the cameras?

Yes Radar works, so does that mean they should just RADAR everything that also would come through the "FRONT DOOR"??

They have the camera's to document visually as well as have other means of identification, it just isn't limited as the more then 80 camera's surely testifies to~!

So again, you mean to honestly tell me that all THE PENTAGON(MILITARY HEADQUARTERS FOR THE UNITED STATES) was prepared for with their abundant camera's was an attack through the front door by SLOW MOVING vehicles!!!?

This is why there is such a disconnect between the de-bunkers, that type of reasoning just isn't believable.

[edit on 24-5-2008 by talisman]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join