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.

 

Absolute Proof of Missing Frames and Tampered Pentagon Footage.. object and blast on screen at the s

page: 7
74
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by matrixNIN11
 


Trixie,
Be sure to look at the evidence you provided. The captions on the screen, as we are led through the "evidence," say that part of the image of the plane is still showing when we see the explosion. Note "part of." Now, for someone with any technical sense at all, this means that the security cam is still making the new image while the old image is still in the ccd. Security cams have low frame rates so thay don't have to store a lot of data. Please tell the rocket scientist in the video how these things work lest he damage his mouse from over clicking.

Would you like to explain the partial image now?


interesting that you only touched on the meathead in the first video, but have nothing to say about the ground affects of the 757 on the lawn, that was talked about by the pilot...i suppose all the hundreds of actual pilots that have come out and said that it was impossible for the pentagon to be hit this way are all liars and morons. right...yeah no questions there right?




posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


I think they arnt lying, but then again, their whole training is to 'Keep the Aircraft in the Air'. That in itself bias's one to say, 'Impossible, you cant do that, the plane would crash.'
NO KIDDING?
Well, isnt that what happened? Those who piloted the aircraft in question, where trained to 'CRASH' it and only keep it in the air long enough to point it in the right direction.

It is only impossible to the pilots because they are trained to believe it is.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by tdatreefrog
I hate to burst everyones bubble as I do believe in alot of the information about the 911 conspiracies. I live in Fairfax and I was one of the select few on the highway that witnessed the plane hit the pentagon. I was heading to work and I was only maybe a mile away. Whether there was more to it than that may be but a plane did hit. Believe me or not but I was there and on that stretch of highway heading to work every day at that time for 12 years. I tried like hell to get my cell camera out but it was hitting as I came within view. I was one of the first people on the scene and I was forced to go out to the gas station across the street as soon as I got out of the car.



HAS ANYONE READ MY POST??? STOP IT, i AM ALL ABOUT GETTING TO THE BOTTOM OF THINGS. BUT TRUST ME .........I AMOUNG MANY OTHERS SAW,WITNESSED,OBSERVED THE PLANE CRASH. I WAS ONE OF THE FIRST PEOPLE AT THE CITGO GAS STATION IMMEDIATELY AFTER, I WAS THERE WHEN SECRET SERVICE OR WHATEVER AGENCY IT WAS CONFISCATED THE TAPE AT THE CITGO. I SPENT ALL DAY THERE. IT HAPPENED.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Victoria 1
One more thing I forgot to mention, when they say in the video it is impossible for a plane to be that low and hit the building. That is complete bull*%^# becuase planes land ALL THE TIME and they are that low because THEY ARE ROLLING ON THE GROUND.


no.....planes that large, land on a thick concrete runway, if the plane had flown over the grass as the pilot of one of those planes said, there would have been a huge gouge of torn up grass. ground affects cannot be faked or dismissed away as conspirecy nutballs...this is pure science, not opinion or conjecture.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Victoria 1

If people reall think that this was a big conspiracy then what the hell are they still doing living in a country that would do something like that. People are in general (this is fact) are stupid. This proves that!


hate to burst your bubble but not everyone in ATS is from America, so its not like we have to worry about leaving it.

we just happen to be observers of whats happening to the country. we also realize that if America falls so will the rest of the world. that is our vested interest, mine anyway.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Theoretical ground effects are theoretical. I am sure all of the experienced pilots believe what they are saying and would never fly the aircraft that way if they were landing it with passengers on board. Because of these considerations, it is unlikely that any of the truth pilots flew that aircraft in that envelope so they are only guessing at stabilities. Stabilities are speed dependent but are non-linear. Remember, this landing approach was not to gently touch down.
See the posts, above, of another eyewitness to the event. It appears that the conspiracy, if any, must be one of 'who flew the aircraft into the Pentagon' and not 'if an aircraft was flown into the Pentagon.'



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by tdatreefrog

Originally posted by tdatreefrog
I hate to burst everyones bubble as I do believe in alot of the information about the 911 conspiracies. I live in Fairfax and I was one of the select few on the highway that witnessed the plane hit the pentagon. I was heading to work and I was only maybe a mile away. Whether there was more to it than that may be but a plane did hit. Believe me or not but I was there and on that stretch of highway heading to work every day at that time for 12 years. I tried like hell to get my cell camera out but it was hitting as I came within view. I was one of the first people on the scene and I was forced to go out to the gas station across the street as soon as I got out of the car.



HAS ANYONE READ MY POST??? STOP IT, i AM ALL ABOUT GETTING TO THE BOTTOM OF THINGS. BUT TRUST ME .........I AMOUNG MANY OTHERS SAW,WITNESSED,OBSERVED THE PLANE CRASH. I WAS ONE OF THE FIRST PEOPLE AT THE CITGO GAS STATION IMMEDIATELY AFTER, I WAS THERE WHEN SECRET SERVICE OR WHATEVER AGENCY IT WAS CONFISCATED THE TAPE AT THE CITGO. I SPENT ALL DAY THERE. IT HAPPENED.


I think its funny no one every wants to even listen to indisputable evidence. I was there!!!!! I saw this happen from 395. Anyone please just aknowledge that my posts have atleast been read......... or just ignore them. So frustrating..... All of these people with their "evidence" weren't even there , that is what is funniest to me.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by tdatreefrog

Originally posted by tdatreefrog
I hate to burst everyones bubble as I do believe in alot of the information about the 911 conspiracies. I live in Fairfax and I was one of the select few on the highway that witnessed the plane hit the pentagon. I was heading to work and I was only maybe a mile away. Whether there was more to it than that may be but a plane did hit. Believe me or not but I was there and on that stretch of highway heading to work every day at that time for 12 years. I tried like hell to get my cell camera out but it was hitting as I came within view. I was one of the first people on the scene and I was forced to go out to the gas station across the street as soon as I got out of the car.



HAS ANYONE READ MY POST??? STOP IT, i AM ALL ABOUT GETTING TO THE BOTTOM OF THINGS. BUT TRUST ME .........I AMOUNG MANY OTHERS SAW,WITNESSED,OBSERVED THE PLANE CRASH. I WAS ONE OF THE FIRST PEOPLE AT THE CITGO GAS STATION IMMEDIATELY AFTER, I WAS THERE WHEN SECRET SERVICE OR WHATEVER AGENCY IT WAS CONFISCATED THE TAPE AT THE CITGO. I SPENT ALL DAY THERE. IT HAPPENED.


why would the secret service confiscate the film?..

surely a film clearly showing a plane hitting the pentagon would be just what they would want people to make public..to see?

this whole thing stinks..how many cameras has the pentagon got?..and how much film have we seen?



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by arcnaver
reply to post by jimmyx
 


I think they arnt lying, but then again, their whole training is to 'Keep the Aircraft in the Air'. That in itself bias's one to say, 'Impossible, you cant do that, the plane would crash.'
NO KIDDING?
Well, isnt that what happened? Those who piloted the aircraft in question, where trained to 'CRASH' it and only keep it in the air long enough to point it in the right direction.

It is only impossible to the pilots because they are trained to believe it is.


wow, i see...so...the tearing up of the lawn from ground affects...i guess that is just nonsense from a pilot that doesn't have a clue about the aerodynamics of similiar 757's he has flown for years... and i guess you you think he and hundreds of other pilots like him don't know what they are talking about. really!



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by alienesque
 



I don't disagree with the oddities and the reasoning.....All I am saying is that I individually witnessed the plane crash. Thats it. I am not claiming to know the reasoning or the motive or who was even in the plane.


Mod edit Replace large quote with reply link.
Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 2/18/2009 by Hal9000]



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 09:45 AM
link   
For all the wild theories about no plane striking the Pentagon, I'm still amazed that those who support these ideas can just blithely ignore all the witnesses who SAW it hit the building.

Until you can explain away these eyewitnesses, it doesn't really matter what you think is or is not possible. Flew on a different route before striking Pentagon? Doesn't matter. Light pole or grass issues? Again, it doesn't matter.

People approach this sort of thing completely bass ackwards. You take any available witnesses first, and from those sightings, work out the scenario. Not concoct your own dream scenario, conveniently ignoring those who say they saw different. That isn't good research, it's poor, biased research, with a conclusion already arrived at in your heads, to which you try and find bits and pieces of the event that will work with your preconceived ideas.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by fleabit
For all the wild theories about no plane striking the Pentagon, I'm still amazed that those who support these ideas can just blithely ignore all the witnesses who SAW it hit the building.

Until you can explain away these eyewitnesses, it doesn't really matter what you think is or is not possible. Flew on a different route before striking Pentagon? Doesn't matter. Light pole or grass issues? Again, it doesn't matter.

People approach this sort of thing completely bass ackwards. You take any available witnesses first, and from those sightings, work out the scenario. Not concoct your own dream scenario, conveniently ignoring those who say they saw different. That isn't good research, it's poor, biased research, with a conclusion already arrived at in your heads, to which you try and find bits and pieces of the event that will work with your preconceived ideas.


Thanks for replying. Isnt it funny, its been bothering me for so long. Everytime I post on any forum I just get flat out ignored. No one wants to hear from the eyewitnesess



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by tdatreefrog
I hate to burst everyones bubble as I do believe in alot of the information about the 911 conspiracies. I live in Fairfax and I was one of the select few on the highway that witnessed the plane hit the pentagon. I was heading to work and I was only maybe a mile away. Whether there was more to it than that may be but a plane did hit. Believe me or not but I was there and on that stretch of highway heading to work every day at that time for 12 years. I tried like hell to get my cell camera out but it was hitting as I came within view. I was one of the first people on the scene and I was forced to go out to the gas station across the street as soon as I got out of the car.


I am not sure if you are familiar with our work. But we have interviewed witnesses who prove the plane flew on the north side of the Citgo(which contradicts the directional damage path), pulls up into an ascent, and is then seen flying away from the scene AFTER the explosion, banking around the south parking lot.

Everything can be seen here...

www.ThePentaCon.com...

I am sure you merely saw a jet in the distance and deduced an impact from the disance of a mile. The Pentagon is not entirely visible from a mile. Can you specify on a map where you were? I assume 395 somewhere correct?

Also can you elaborate on this comment:

"I tried like hell to get my cell camera out but it was hitting as I came within view."

Because...


"The first commercial deployment in North America of camera phones was in 2002."

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Theoretical ground effects are theoretical. I am sure all of the experienced pilots believe what they are saying and would never fly the aircraft that way if they were landing it with passengers on board. Because of these considerations, it is unlikely that any of the truth pilots flew that aircraft in that envelope so they are only guessing at stabilities. Stabilities are speed dependent but are non-linear. Remember, this landing approach was not to gently touch down.
See the posts, above, of another eyewitness to the event. It appears that the conspiracy, if any, must be one of 'who flew the aircraft into the Pentagon' and not 'if an aircraft was flown into the Pentagon.'


ground affects are not theoretical, and the pilots are not guessing about what might happen. the pilot was not talking about gently touching down, and the pilots of these huge aircraft don't guess about stabilites. the training to fly a passenger aircraft this size is not studied off of a CD with a few hours of time in a simulator. and i like your indentification of what was flown into the pentagon. an "aircraft"...something that flies, yeah...i agree with you on that...it was an "aircraft" that flew into the pentagon, and the pilot never said it was not an "aircraft". he said that the ground affects from a 757 airline coming in that low over GRASS would have torn a massive amount of grass from the dirt.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by zerozero00

Definitely a missile

[edit on 17-2-2009 by zerozero00]


There was no missile.

We have interviewed numerous witnesses on location on camera who saw a large aircraft. The only thing is the what they saw proves the plane did not and could not hit the light poles or the building. In fact we have a Pentagon Police officer who saw the plane flying away AFTER the explosion.





The object in the video does not even cast a shadow. It is not real
They edited out the frame with the flyover/flyaway plane and inserted this object right before the explosion.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 



I know personally from that day all the real witnesses. I was there all day. Were you there on 9/11? If so you met me. Do a little research , a camera is not a camera phone.

edit: sorry for the remark i didnt realized I said cell camera

[edit on 18-2-2009 by tdatreefrog]

[edit on 18-2-2009 by tdatreefrog]


Mod edit: Replaced large quote with Reply link.
Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 2/18/2009 by Hal9000]



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


wow...good pull of the cell phone details...this "witness" proves himself to be a liar by getting caught with the facts...makes you wonder how many more of these "people" are here to cover-up for the government's story.

and as i see he did an EDIT, i have to ask ...why are you people so afraid to have an independent investigation? do you think it would be a waste of time? don't you want some of the unanswered questions to be brought out into the light of day?

[edit on 18-2-2009 by jimmyx]



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by tdatreefrog
 


Can anyone tell me when cell cameras came out? I am sure they were available but not every phone had one in 2001. I say this because I don't recall seeing one cell phone video or picture on the twin towers.

Can this poster give us the make and model of there cell phone that they were attempting to use in 2001.............

Just a thought???



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


wow...good pull of the cell phone details...this "witness" proves himself to be a liar by getting caught with the facts...makes you wonder how many more of these "people" are here to cover-up for the government's story.



BWAHAHAHAHA...... I am here for the government? I do love this site but if you could only see me here sitting and what I am doing you would laugh harder than I just did. I unlike many of you have lived here my whole life and I have driven that road everyday for twelve years at the time. I saw what I saw. I have many witnesess that were there with me. Hell ask all the witnesses from citgo they will remember everyone that wasnt that many people there. I am not trying to PROVE anything. Just tellin ya there are people out there that were eyewitnesses. i was one of them. If anyone would like to meet with me in the NoVa area to discuss the event I would be glad to. I have no agenda. I would love to discuss my view and what I saw that day.


I mis-spoke with the cell camera comment. I did have a camera and I DO have pictures. I will post them on flickr tonight with a link on here.

[edit on 18-2-2009 by tdatreefrog]



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


wow...good pull of the cell phone details...this "witness" proves himself to be a liar by getting caught with the facts...makes you wonder how many more of these "people" are here to cover-up for the government's story.

and as i see he did an EDIT, i have to ask ...why are you people so afraid to have an independent investigation? do you think it would be a waste of time? don't you want some of the unanswered questions to be brought out into the light of day?

[edit on 18-2-2009 by jimmyx]


No not at all. As I said before. I am not trying to debunk the theories at all.. I am on here trying to learn the truth too. I was merely stating I saw the crash. Thats it. Thats all. I am very open minded and I read all the blogs and watch all the videos to gain as much knowledge. Someone like me from the area with an eyewitness account believe is as much interested in the truth as anyone. Not sure why some of you are flaming. I never stated more than that I saw it happen. May be hard for some to believe but its the one undeniable truth I know.




top topics



 
74
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join