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.

 

New Video Discovery Channel "Attack on the Pentagon"

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 10:08 PM
link   
defcon 5,

We can go back and fourth over the minute details until you bore us all to death. The fact is, the FBI was confiscating video tapes from gas stations across the street within an hour of the crash which would completely negate any talk of them being worried about exposing their high-tech security cams.

Why would they not want people to see what should of been a 747 flying into the side of the pentagon? Especially if the frame rate was so slow it should of only been a blur? Even if they did fire a missile into it, there would have just been a blur so why would it matter? Why send FBI agents all over confiscating tapes if there is nothing to hide?

The fact is there are MANY unanswered questions and any attempt to get decent explanation is shot down. Picking out minute details and arguing them till we are all blue in the face is a good strategy because you will out last most truthers.

You are past convincing and we get it. All we are looking for are legitimate answers to legitimate questions. The fact is there are many that haven't been answered by our government and if they had nothing to hide, why wouldn't they let an actual INDEPENDENT investigation take place?

I want to believe our government had nothing to do with this horrible day just as much as you do, but they act like they are hiding something and no matter how bad i dont want to believe it, common sense tells me we deserve a better explanation.

my .02




posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 11:17 PM
link   
The real question is. . .

Why were some military personnel who were due to be in the Pentagon that day called in the early morning hours to have their appointments canceled, and no reason given?



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 12:15 AM
link   
At the end of the day it is ludicrous to believe that the Pentagon had Security camera's only equipped movement no faster then a robbery at an ATM machine! It is just ridiculous to suppose such.

For whatever reason, they(gov) does not want any of us to see what happened.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by bringthelight
We can go back and fourth over the minute details until you bore us all to death. The fact is, the FBI was confiscating video tapes from gas stations across the street within an hour of the crash which would completely negate any talk of them being worried about exposing their high-tech security cams.

What does the FBI confiscating unsecured video from a private facility that is off military property have to do with the secure cameras that exist on a military facility? You are comparing apples and oranges. I doubt the FBI even has the jurisdiction to get the Pentagon tapes without clearance to do so from the military.


Originally posted by bringthelight
Why would they not want people to see what should of been a 747 flying into the side of the pentagon?

Well I would guess that it would be because a 757 flew into it not a 747. A 747 is a much larger wide body aircraft, and a 757 is a good size narrow body aircraft. No one but you has made any accusations that a 747 ever flew into anything on 911.


Originally posted by bringthelight
Especially if the frame rate was so slow it should of only been a blur?

I have never said that it would not possibly be a blur. I said that they would protect the details of their security system. The same way that at the airport, believe it or not, it’s a big deal that no one is supposed to know the time table of patrols, or the layout of the security there. A big aspect in security is that people don’t know where any potential gaps are.


Originally posted by bringthelight
Even if they did fire a missile into it, there would have just been a blur so why would it matter?

OK, it wouldn’t other then to keep aspects of the security system secret.


Originally posted by bringthelight
Why send FBI agents all over confiscating tapes if there is nothing to hide?

Because those were civilian owned tapes that became evidence in a criminal investigation. Evidence this bad habit of being locked up on a room with a tag on it until it is released by the court or agency who subpoenaed it.


Originally posted by bringthelight
The fact is there are MANY unanswered questions and any attempt to get decent explanation is shot down.

Why don’t you go downtown to the DA’s office and ask them the procedure for gaining access to evidence in a yet untried criminal case. Maybe the security footage from a robbery or something. Let me know how that turns out?

After all after the case was over they released the tape, and we found out why they never released it before, it pretty much didn’t show anything…


Originally posted by bringthelight
Picking out minute details and arguing them till we are all blue in the face is a good strategy because you will out last most truthers.

No most truthers wear down anyone telling the truth by shear numbers. I have pretty much avoided the 911 forums for years because of it, and am not sure how I got suckered in again this time around.


Originally posted by bringthelight
You are past convincing and we get it.

Actually I am an ex-airline supervisor, and I feel quite confidant in my ability to decide this one without help from truthers who don’t know the difference between a 747 and a 757, no offense.



Originally posted by bringthelight
All we are looking for are legitimate answers to legitimate questions.

No actually truthers inherently only look for facts that fit their own theories, not truth. When they find truth that does not fit the way they like, then they always have some excuse to not accept it. Almost all the folks with real aviation experience on this site are not truthers. Look through my friends list and you’ll find a bunch of them in there.


Originally posted by bringthelight
The fact is there are many that haven't been answered by our government and if they had nothing to hide, why wouldn't they let an actual INDEPENDENT investigation take place?

Every time they do and it does not agree that there was a vast government covered up conspiracy, the truth movement has some issue with it. There was just an independent investigation by professional architects that was released and the truthers called it all a set up by government agents, or some-such.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Im from the UK, I remember Sep 11th but as a young naive teen although i knew it was big at the time i didnt realise how big.

I love reading the conspiracy theorys, some of which are the best conspiracies ive ever read. Its totally sad how many people lost their lives that day. But again as someone who is down the middle, because in fairness alot of CT's have been debunked. But other important ones havent. And the main issue for me is why dont the government or whoever just show more footage of the plane hitting the pentagon?The one clip ive seen basically looks like a missile no bigger than a light aircraft. Surely theres better footage!? Anyone got any links? I mean it might debunk the pentagon issue and stop us CT hunters to shut up about it. Something is dodgy............



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 03:15 PM
link   
For me, it boils down to the fact they won't release any footage of it. That right there is red flag central. If they want me to believe the official story, show me some evidence. We know the cameras are there and there is no reason to not release them if they are telling the truth.

But 7 years later and nothing.

So yeah, I don't buy the official story at all. There are tons of other valid questions, but the above is the one I feel sticks out the most. They must be hiding something, and it's there own fault when people come to conclusions outside the official story when they refuse to show known evidence that would squash the question in seconds.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
I have never said that it would not possibly be a blur. I said that they would protect the details of their security system. The same way that at the airport, believe it or not, it’s a big deal that no one is supposed to know the time table of patrols, or the layout of the security there. A big aspect in security is that people don’t know where any potential gaps are.


So how do you explain the locations of the cameras being public? Yet another debunker who will just use any excuse that sounds good and doesn't offer actual reasons. Where is the official statement as this being the reason they didn't. Oh yeah, it doesn't exist because you just made it up.

Besides, if they haven't changed up the security after all these years, then that is a risk in itself. When I was in the military we changed security items on a daily basis as far as codes and such go.



Because those were civilian owned tapes that became evidence in a criminal investigation. Evidence this bad habit of being locked up on a room with a tag on it until it is released by the court or agency who subpoenaed it.


Again more stuff you've just made up. Where is this criminal investigation you mention? And if it's still under investigation, then how do we have an official story already?



Why don’t you go downtown to the DA’s office and ask them the procedure for gaining access to evidence in a yet untried criminal case. Maybe the security footage from a robbery or something. Let me know how that turns out?

After all after the case was over they released the tape, and we found out why they never released it before, it pretty much didn’t show anything…



Funny, because I see footage of this exact thing on the news all the time.



No most truthers wear down anyone telling the truth by shear numbers. I have pretty much avoided the 911 forums for years because of it, and am not sure how I got suckered in again this time around.


What truth have you posted? The only thing you've done is posted excuses you think might be valid. You just like most debunkers just post something that sounds good to you as a reason/excuse when it's not even close to being the official reason, story or whatever.



Actually I am an ex-airline supervisor, and I feel quite confidant in my ability to decide this one without help from truthers who don’t know the difference between a 747 and a 757, no offense.



And here, in classic debunker fashion you personally attack his credibility on something that doesn't even matter. Guess what, the hole isn't really big enough for a 757 either. But again, you are just latching onto anything you can possibly think of.



Every time they do and it does not agree that there was a vast government covered up conspiracy, the truth movement has some issue with it. There was just an independent investigation by professional architects that was released and the truthers called it all a set up by government agents, or some-such.


The NIST report? Are you serious? Where they literally had to create a new found "phenomenon" to explain it away? Please, give me a break.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
So how do you explain the locations of the cameras being public?

I guess I don't understand what you mean when you ask about the cameras being public, because I think I explained that pretty well. The camera at the gas station, hotel, and places such as that are all civilian owned cameras that the FBI has the jurisdiction to confiscate. The cameras on a military facility they don't have the jurisdiction to confiscate without permission of the military. The military falls outside that jurisdiction in most areas which is why they provide their own law enforcement devisions such as MP's, the judge advocate, and even their own prison system. If you are the ex-military person that you claim to be, then you should know this.


Originally posted by badmedia
Yet another debunker who will just use any excuse that sounds good and doesn't offer actual reasons.

You have ZERO right to call me a debunker simply because I disagree with your ideas on the topic. To be honest I think that 99% of the CT's on 911 are all complete BS, which only people who know NOTHING about aircraft even fall for. None of that is because I am a debunker, but rather because I have have years of personal experience in that field of work. Gee, don't you think that if there was any truth to these theories that thousands of professional aviation personnel would be stepping forward to dispute them, as opposed to the few fame seekers who do? Anyhow, sorry I don't prescribe to your theory's, but I'll try and be mature enough not to brand you with a title the way you have me.

One thing that kills me about the Pilots for 911truth is how many have gotten Commercial Pilots licenses just so they can make ignorant folks believe that they fly for a Commercial Airlines. Its such an obvious ploy to try and show expertise in something in which they have none. A Commercial License means that you can do things like be a bush pilot, traffic reporter, aerial photographer, etc, and its very easy to get. A TRUE airline pilot rating is called an “Airline Transport Pilot (License)” or ATP(L), and is VERY expensive and time consuming to get. Again, another way in which the Truth Movement tries to manipulate the truth, and is less then truthful.


Originally posted by badmedia
Where is the official statement as this being the reason they didn't. Oh yeah, it doesn't exist because you just made it up.

OK...
Where is the official documentation that those cameras were even functional, and not disconnected do to construction being done on that area of the building?
Where is your proof that those cameras where not focused on the fence line, but rather on the area immediately in front of the crash zone?
Where is your proof, that they were running tape on those cameras at that moment?
Where is your proof that the frame rate was high enough to capture anything?
Where is your proof that they were running in normal security cameras, and not in something like thermal cameras?
Have they ever stated that there was additional footage that was recorded at the Pentagon, or do you just ASSUME that there is because you see something that looks like security cameras on posts outside the building?

You have even less proof then anyone else, and we all know that CT's can only exist in a vacuum.
A vacuum does not suffice as evidence in itself.


Originally posted by badmedia
Besides, if they haven't changed up the security after all these years, then that is a risk in itself. When I was in the military we changed security items on a daily basis as far as codes and such go.

You really think that they would change cameras that often? So you guys got out tools, and went up on the fence line and repositioned every camera, every day? WOW! Sounds more like your the one making things up, not me.


Originally posted by badmedia
Again more stuff you've just made up. Where is this criminal investigation you mention?
They just released film footage about a year ago, which had previously been subpoenaed for court. That footage had been used in the trial of one of the 911 cohorts. I guess you missed that.


Originally posted by badmedia
And if it's still under investigation, then how do we have an official story already?

The footage from that trial was released after it ended. Now show me any documentation stating that there is still footage that has not been released, beyond what CT'ers ASSUME must exist?


Originally posted by badmedia
Funny, because I see footage of this exact thing on the news all the time.

Only when the DA, Court or investigating Law Enforcement Agency allows that footage to be released, and they feel that it helps their case, investigation, or in the capture of a fugitive. They are never obligated to release such footage while its evidence, especially if it hurts their case, or includes items that may be detrimental to the victim.


Originally posted by badmedia
What truth have you posted? The only thing you've done is posted excuses you think might be valid. You just like most debunkers just post something that sounds good to you as a reason/excuse when it's not even close to being the official reason, story or whatever.

Everything that I post on this site is either truth to the best of my knowledge, or pointing out possibilities that others may not have considered. Everything that I have posted about aircraft is 100% truth in this thread, the only area where you may find some speculation is about the cameras.


Originally posted by badmedia
And here, in classic debunker fashion you personally attack his credibility on something that doesn't even matter. Guess what, the hole isn't really big enough for a 757 either. But again, you are just latching onto anything you can possibly think of.

Really? Explain this then:


I am just curious how many 757's you have worked on, because I used to supervise the ramp on 2 every shift. One turn flight and one terminator. The building that we used to park them at allowed the nose to actually pass under the building so the door could line up with the fixed jetway, and I have pictures showing exactly how nicely they will fit into a single story of a building. I am 6 foot tall, and even with the gear down I could easily touch the center of the ray dome, or the tops of the engines.


Originally posted by badmedia
The NIST report? Are you serious? Where they literally had to create a new found "phenomenon" to explain it away? Please, give me a break.

No, there was a new report by professional architects and engineers that was released in the last couple of weeks. Search around ATS and you'll find it, plus all the Truth Movement people still griping about how it must be wrong as it does not agree with their pet theories.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
What makes people think that they are obligated, or that they would ever even consider releasing footage from a camera on a secure military installation. Just by releasing such footage they may be tipping their hand as to the capabilities of the security cameras and their field of view. Also we have no idea if those cameras are all active, if they are all recording, or what the time delay on those cameras would be. Its entirely possible that those cameras were nonfunctional at the time due to the construction being done on that area of the building.


While your argument about the weight of a rim and wet grass are mildly compelling it is wildly ridiculous to assume that no cameras on one of the worlds (supposedly) most secured facilities did not catch the crash or incoming plane. It is just a ludicrous to suggest that showing an incoming plane will compromise security. Finally it IS their obligation to release some amount of footage. WE own the cameras. WE own them.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pootie
While your argument about the weight of a rim and wet grass are mildly compelling it is wildly ridiculous to assume that no cameras on one of the worlds (supposedly) most secured facilities did not catch the crash or incoming plane.

The problem is that people assume that there is tape from those cameras they see in facade photos, but we have no proof that there is any. We know that the area, which was hit, was under construction, so do we know for a fact that those cameras had not just been replaced and were not yet hooked into the security system? Do we know if those are old cameras, which had to have their cables re-run through the new facade? Do we know if they record on those cameras, or if they are simply piped to static monitors?

There is a lot here that we don’t know, and there is no evidence to show that there is still footage being withheld. This is what I am trying to point out.


Originally posted by Pootie
It is just a ludicrous to suggest that showing an incoming plane will compromise security.

I think you would be surprised at the things secure locations consider compromising to their security. Did you know that in many places it is illegal to shoot photos onto an airfield? Even civilian airfields fall under this:

1) "In the United States, anything visible ("in plain view") from a public area can be legally photographed. This includes buildings and facilities, people, signage, notices and images. It is not uncommon for security personnel to use intimidation or other tactics to attempt to stop the photographer from photographing their facilities (trying to prevent, e.g., industrial espionage); however, there is no legal precedent to prevent the photographer so long as the image being photographed is in plain view from a public area."
Some other restrictions on photography exist in the US, but most have to do with either commercial use of a space, such as forbidding photography inside a private building, or national security, such as restrictions on airport security areas or military installations


Here in the States its not allowed to take any photos of Commercial Airports unless you recieve written permission form the Airport mangers Office which really isn't to hard to do.
You can sit off the airport and take photos all day long. now if you plan on taking photos at a airport remember to check out what your taking photos of first make sure there is no TSA/Police/FBI in the photo and no photos of the security area.


The are no laws that prohibit the taking of photographs on public or private property (except for special circumstances such as airport checkpoints, certain government facilities).


Photography in Restricted Areas

Just as tourists want to photograph an image or view that they see for the first time so too some visitors to US Air Force bases may want to photograph certain planes and military personnel as they go about their day-to-day work. But visitors to a US Air Force base need to keep in mind that much of what goes on is kept private from the public and that taking photos in restricted areas or of restricted weaponry and machinery could land a person in serious trouble. If in any doubt about what you can safely photograph, ask at the gate when you first enter the base.



Originally posted by Pootie
Finally it IS their obligation to release some amount of footage.

Show me one law that states this? Show me any evidence that they are still withholding anything anyway?


Originally posted by Pootie
WE own the cameras. WE own them.

Well your taxes pay for the government, so technically we all own the US Military. However, your elected government has set up laws to protect things such as national security, and you agree to those rules by remaining a US citizen. If you don’t like them, then lobby to change them, but until they are changed they still apply, regardless of whether you like them or not. I mean after all you technically own military equipment then also, so lets see you sign out an F-16 and use it to go on vacation.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pootie

Originally posted by defcon5

While your argument about the weight of a rim and wet grass are mildly compelling it is wildly ridiculous to assume that no cameras on one of the worlds (supposedly) most secured facilities did not catch the crash or incoming plane. It is just a ludicrous to suggest that showing an incoming plane will compromise security. Finally it IS their obligation to release some amount of footage. WE own the cameras. WE own them.


I always here as proof of some cover up that the pentagon was the most secure building on the planet.Ive been in the pentagon hundreds of times before 9-11 and trust me it was anything but secure. the building was built in the 40,s you wouldnt believe what they had to do get cameras on the building in the 1st place. They ran tours had vendors in fact they had a vendor in the court that made the best hot dogs i ever had. There was no protection for aircraft built in. And worse could drive up to the front door. If anything it was probably the least secure military installation. Offices for top brass to hang out and in reality most of them hung out at FT Meade the real heart of the military in the DC area.



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 10:14 PM
link   
As an airline pilot who was in the air that day between NYC and DC, I can tell you that alot of this "lack of response" talk is pure hindsight. Of course it seems in some of your minds that we just "let this happen" or even something more ridiculous, but the plain and simple fact is that we got caught with our pants down.

On my flight, we flew from takeoff to destination without hearing one word about what had happened, until we got close to landing and could tell it was awfully quiet for that time of day. A simple question from me brought a plain spoken response from ATC of what had occurred in NYC, but the Pentagon event had not yet taken place.

We could not tell from the radio talk (on Approach Control) that the entire country was in the process of being grounded, a feat which was handled in an extremely professional manner by the FAA and impresses me even today. But in the moments following the NYC attacks and preceding the Pentagon, no one, including the military, could fully grasp what was going on.

In looking at the video and photos from the Pentagon, one can find remnants of aircraft wreckage, albeit relatively small. However, this was a very high speed impact, and one not trained in engineering or aviation accident investigation cannot comprehend the magnitude of such an impact and what it does to an aircraft structure.

Ask yourself this...where is the aircraft at Shanksville? There is nothing visible from the distance cameras were allowed that even shows a fragment recognizable as part of a 757. There is no footage of that crash either, so does that prove that there wasn't one there? Or did "the government" sneak out there and blow a big black hole in the ground to fake another crash so we could have our heroes in this crazy scenario?

The answer is no! This was another straight in (vertically or horizontally is irrelevent) high speed impact which simply shatterred the aircraft and its' occupants. There have been hundreds of aircraft crashes worldwide, including many airliners, which resulted in similar extreme damage.

The absence of photos or footage of the aircraft pre-impact DOES NOT prove that it did not exist. Today, seven years after these tragedies, I think that we are much more likely to have more complete security camera coverage of such an event.

One last thing...aluminum melts at 1200 degrees F. In the NYC footage you can see WHITE hot flames spitting out of the floors where the impacts occurred. Just before the first collapse, sparks of molten metal can be seen spraying from one corner of the tower. There was more than enough heat in these fires and the one at the Pentagon to permanently destroy a large portion of the aluminum structure of these aircraft.

Four REAL aircraft crashed that day. My profession lost some fine aviators and other employees who worked every day aboard those aircraft. We should not be clouding our youths' minds with all of this garbage talk of conspiracies...it insults the memory of the fine men and women; pilots, flight attendants, firefighters, police, EMT's, military personnel, and thousands of civilians who lost their lives on 9/11.

For those who say that those lost deserve "The Truth", I say the truth is right in front of you.



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 



Damn am I late!! But I had to reply to the person who posted this absurd montage of whatever these pics are supposed to represent...that little tiny "engine rotor" that comes up to that person's leg isn't the engine rotor from a 757...this is...



and this is:



You can damn near stand inside of it...now, where's the "plane" that hit the Pentagon?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join