It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 06:58 PM

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 07:22 PM
reply to post by weedwhacker

Thanks for the calculations, Weed. That amount of fuel would be about a fuel truck or fuel trailer load.
No cruise missile is capable of carrying this amount of fuel. The best airborne platform to deliver this amount of fuel at 400+ mph would be a large commercial aircraft.

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 07:39 PM
reply to post by pteridine is really that simple.

We look at our fuel load, prior to dispatch (the Dispatchers decide, about two hours before departure....they look at what the computer spits out, for the fuel burn at the ''filed' altitudes....they also look at the FAA amndated 45-minute Reserves....done for them, because every airplane type has this as a Standard....AND, there is always the 'fudge factor' thqat every airline adds in, based on airplane type)

Pilots see every thing that has been done already....and look at the CURRENT weather, and if wishing to add fuel, they can call the Dispatcher....and when agreed, fuel will be added.....adding fuel can be a problem, though, if the payload is is always a compromise.

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 07:49 PM
reply to post by weedwhacker

If we are claiming conspiracy and cover-up, then why is it considered TRUTHER NONSENSE, that their would be conspiracy and cover-up to try and plant false evidence and make the discussions look ridiculous?

There are silly discussions about Evolution, does it mean that animals don't evolve, if someone comes out with a non-scientific claim supporting it?

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 07:51 PM
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

Your point that their might have been no plane and no missile, I think, might be supported by the OTHER evidence we are lacking -- the tapes of the RADAR data; 080718-180.html

If the Bush administration had nothing to hide with 9/11 -- then why did they hide EVERYTHING?

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 08:15 PM
reply to post by weedwhacker

The point I make about the Tobacco industry, is that conspiracies DO happen, and if you have a lot of people involved, you are MORE likely to be successful, as long as you can build consensus. It has a LOT to do with 9/11, and the campaign to keep the lid on Global Warming. Lots of disinformation means that no clear decisions can be made. It isn't about stopping all thought -- just keeping it from the mouths of "reputable" people on TV News who get paid to be ignorant.

EVERYBODY KNOWS, that Truther's are fools. You bring up "inside job" and most people just shut down. And those people don't KNOW much about the events -- even the official timeline would curl most hair.

>>Go back and look at the Iran/Contra affair, and in particular BCCI. It was a bank created to launder money for drugs and terrorism. If you want to find a connection between al Qaeda, Oil for Food, and Bin Laden -- look there, they all used the bank.

But be careful, because you might find that Bin Laden's half brother bailed out Arbusto Energy Inc., through that bank. And a connection to Dick Cheney, and Atlanta branch of BCCI and the Oil For Food program -- Haliburton was one of the main embargo runners making profits. The connection to the Bush family comes up with the Billions that went missing when Neal Bush ran Silverado Savings and Loan -- funneled to BCCI.

The bank comes up again in connection with 9/11. All this is documented and out in the open due to a declassified CIA memo on BCCI -- yet to bring up REAL events with court documents sounds like a conspiracy theory.

The invasion of Afghanistan was about Oil and Natural Gas. A Unocal executive, became the drug lord/appointed leader with Bush's help. Now they have their pipeline to the Caspian Sea.

>>I think I could probably explain some of the weirdness with Bush and the Bin Laden family. On 9/12/2001, Bush called off the FBI and let the Bin Laden family fly back to Saudi Arabia (OBL's dad had been meeting with Pappy Bush at the Carlysle Group meeting).

ON the face of it, Bush is making a show of wanting to destroy al Qaeda. On the back end, he has to reassure the family, that he's just pretending -- they have a LOT of financial ties, and up until the WTC bombing, best buddies. However, there was a falling out in Texas, where the interests of Big Energy demanded that the US take control of Afghanistan as far as oil pipelines go. You can "have a carpet of roses, or a carpet of bombs" was the famous offer to OBL. After 9/11, it was reported that a Pakistani agent assassinated OBL on December of 2001.

Bush didn't want the Boogie man to go away, so OBL's death if it happened, wouldn't likely make headlines, and he had Bin Laden out of the way -- because he'd interfere with the pipeline -- without upsetting the family.

>> People can waive off a few points that Truther's make, and then point to some nonsense HOLOGRAM theory. But when you look at the ENTIRE Bush Presidency and financial activities in context -- it is really hard to believe that it wasn't planned and it directly benefitted them.

And then we have to look that most of the contracting agencies in Iraq, and Afghanistan cleaning up after Katrina, have a connection to Bush or Cheney in their businesses. You can't go far without tripping over Carlysle, KBR, Blackwater, Haliburton and a dozen others - -companies with numerous cases of fraud.

So much activity that looks just like the Mob -- except the Mob can't make Patriot Act laws to legalize its activities.

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 08:18 PM

Originally posted by thrustbucket
The OP's avatar is pretty telling just how far gone he is with the conspiracy theories...

I have read and watched tons of stuff about 9/11 theories. I've even had personal email conversations with Dr Jones about WTC 11.

I've seen plenty to suggest that the official story about 9/11 is full of holes and likely wrong. But I've seen nothing but circumstantial and agenda driven emotional evidence to suggest the government or bush or any particular entity is to directly blame.

It's easy to point out there is something fishy. So far nobody has shown proof of who and why.

[edit on 18-2-2009 by thrustbucket]

>> Then would you support a FAIR TRIAL for the people involved? Really, there is no way for some people typing on the internet to be able to PROVE guilt -- that's for a court. But I think we definitely have probable cause to take it to trial and settle it.

We have means, motive and opportunity. Then we have a direct involvement in a coverup and a hindering of investigations.

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 08:30 PM
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

Interesting, but WAY off topic...sorry

Actually, let's look back at the OP's point....not sure it is a very strong argument to begin with.

Trying to make the Pentagon tragedy just a bit of 'tampered' video frames....well, again, I invite people to keep in mind the dead.

Hate to be maudlin....but I think it's important to keep the dead in mind, as we discuss this issue.

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 08:31 PM

Originally posted by skeptic_al
reply to post by matrixNIN11

Proof the Neos working at pentagon 10 years ago when they specifically
installed cameras that can only focus on cars coming into a carpark and
record only 1 frame a second. So they must have antisipated a plane
crashing into the building could not have been recorded.

Yip, this is proof positive of stupidity gone astray.

>> The video we were given after 4 year is not proof of the video we weren't given. You can also re-sample a video to take frames out.

They have spy satellites with better resolution of the Pentagon lawn.

I can't even buy a camera as bad as MOST of the images and video footage our government has released. Sure, there is incompetence -- but what about the video from the gas station that got confiscated? Why on earth are we not allowed to see that? We even discussed this before...
So why is it, that everyone has amnesia when we are discussing these things over and over? To conclude that a bad video is proof that our claims are nonsense, you have to ignore all the suspicious activity that looks like a cover-up.

>> I usually avoid comment on the 9/11 incident at the Pentagon, because there is less that can be proven. EVERYTHING was destroyed that could prove anything.

>> Personal accounts that are used to claim an airplane hit -- well, those are the least reliable evidence in most cases. When people are startled and see a plane flying 100 feet from the ground, they aren't ready to critically examine events.

I'm not saying it happened, but it would be really easy to fly over the Pentagon and trigger some explosives. The big explosion, would obscure any view of the airplane, unless you knew where to look. As the airplane flies away, everyone is already looking at the damage.

After all, that part of the building coincidentally got rebuilt just a month before the incident (lots of those coincidences).

>> But again, I'm not saying THAT is what happened. It would be easy to disprove, if we still had some recod from the FAA that day. Here's another coincidence.

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 08:36 PM

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by 31337

31377...I KNOW how big the Pentagon is...I SAW it, as I drove past, after 9/11

I SAW the damage....not damage a simple missile could do....unless it was loaded with thousands of gallons of jet fuel!!!

Hope you're OK....

I missile can do a lot more damage than an airplane.

Or explosives.

>> But it's silly to try and prove that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon. What needs to happen is to have a trial and put Rummy and his underlings on the stand and get them to testify to EVERYTHING on the Record. Then go out and keep widening the net and back up or contradict everything they say.

We need the other confiscated video tapes. We need the parts from the plane.

There is a lot more to talk about at the WTC. And we need to follow the financial links with the BCCI bank.

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 08:47 PM
reply to post by Victoria 1

There is often this mistake, that while a network might have a few people on, to complain about racism, or host Oprah, that they are Liberal.

When you look at the Megacorps and interlocking directorates that own MOST of the media, how can this be so? Is GM or GE a Liberal company with so much invested in war?
take a look

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 08:53 PM
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

Stuff from 2006???


If you've noticed, it is now 2009.

Events we're discussing back in 2001....cannot BELIEVE this is still being talked in 2009!

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 09:00 PM
reply to post by tdatreefrog

A question of psychological momentum, their 'thread' becomes more like a large cannonball, and making a point to them is surprisingly like the inertia the careering cannonball will exhibit if one tries to change its angle of momentum......
Stick with the crashes happening: an American aviation body announced they thought the collision course trajectories would have to have been pre-programmed; it's interesting that the death of Joseph Kennedy, father of John F. Kennedy, was obliterated by two blasts mysteriously occurring on a plane developed especially for the purpose of being put on collision course: the Liberator Joe Kennedy was on had just been announced as being under full remote control from the ground, (during the mid-1940s) then the explosions happened, before the crew could eject and float down by parachute.
It's justifiable to go for conspiracy there; pockets of military have had long time knowledgeability of planes as being turned into giant arrows by telemetric control boxes.
Nevertheless, there has been something about that crash they must have thought the public might spot (or what sort of political question is it that they are terrified of sites like abovetopsecret, Steamshovel, earthfiles,, et al., do this analytical behaviour make these butchers a little more nervous?) and they've wanted to cut out a thing or two, it might not even be the actual original film.......
I was told in 1992 the sensitive version of the Zapruder footage should show a guy sharply, suddenly opening and shutting an umbrella on a blazing hot sunny day.............

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 09:00 PM

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by weedwhacker

Thanks for the calculations, Weed. That amount of fuel would be about a fuel truck or fuel trailer load.
No cruise missile is capable of carrying this amount of fuel. The best airborne platform to deliver this amount of fuel at 400+ mph would be a large commercial aircraft.


Sure, nobody would bother putting explosives in missiles, since jet fuel has got to be the most dangerous substance known to mankind!

I'm not promoting a missile idea -- it's just that, even with 100 witnesses, they could easily be all wrong. It happens all the time. You have 2 seconds tops to see anything -- and you weren't prepared for an airplane to come screaming out of the sky in the first place.

Then, most people can't see a plane pass over the Pentagon -- especially not if there is an explosion -- besides they are looking at the wrong thing.

And since that part of the Pentagon was re-built, it gives the perfect opportunity to plant whatever you want.

Driving by, even 300 yards away, you can't really see if the plane flies over or not unless you are looking from the other side of the building.

>> I'd love to find out if Rummy had any orders about security sweeps, and to track down all the workers who were assigned that construction job -- just like all the security people who worked for Marvin Bush's company at the WTC.

I mean, it all stinks. There is nothing that CAN BE PROVED. So let's take it to court.

>> But stop with the "eye witness" nonsense. That's probably the least useful evidence. We had over 100 people see a UFO in Arizona -- including the mayor, and obviously, this isn't enough proof for wide-stream acceptance. The only difference between the Pentagon, and the Arizona sighting, is that there are more people in suits on TV saying it is reasonable.

We are willing to accept lousy evidence for the mundane -- and only extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary. Therefore, people are conditioned to NOT see the event for what it is -- but for what they EXPECT it to be, unless they are prepared to actually LOOK. Whatever your pre-conditioned to believe is most reasonable, is what you are going to see in a split second. That's how magic tricks work folks -- they fool the mind and the eye thinks it sees the truth.

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 09:51 PM
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

Well, then...Vitriol....wher are the people, of AAL 77???

Ya know, there were a lot of children onboard that flight. THIS is on record....

I can barely contain myself....WHAT sort of twisted minds would knowingly kill children?!!!??? Let me re-phrase that....WHAT sort of twisted 'AMERICAN' minds would knowlingly kill children????

Ponder for a few minutes.....

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 10:19 PM
Hi, waked up persons !

Someone asked:
" WHAT sort of twisted minds would knowingly kill children? "

The same people that created the **Iraq incubator** LIE ! ! !

Same people that created the **Weapons of Mass Destruction** LIE ! ! !

NOW, how did the WTC-7 building went down ????????
Little debris did that, YEAHHHHH RRRRRIGHT !!

And how many blocks away from the TWINs was WTC-7 ??????

===== EDIT for more precisions ========
Those "twisted minds" are above religions, above laws,
above presidents & kings, and don't even care for their OWN
children, if they made some by mistake, or for cover-up ! !

Let's wake up, please ?!

Blue skies.

[edit on 09/2/19 by C-JEAN]

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 10:34 PM
reply to post by C-JEAN

Oh dear....WTC 7 was hit by falling was the Marriot Hotel.

WTC7....hmmmm....what about WTC 3-6????

Come on!! YouTube is NOT a great source of it s souce of enterainment.

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 11:17 PM
Never mind..... sorry

[edit on 2/18/2009 by Oolon]

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 11:49 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 11:54 PM
I love this site it is very entertaining!! I have a couple of questions though how did they fly the planes into the wtc oh wait let me guess it was remote controlled and i guess they just made up a bunch of people and had people in the government pretend they were kin to the people that were KILLED on the plane that crashed into the pentagon.

top topics

<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in