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.

 

Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

page: 26
215
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


The pentagon does in fact have security cameras facing outward. Im sorry to have to tell you that. And yes, some other companies do infact have cameras facing outward, as for the companies in the area of the pentagon Im not too sure.




posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
Like the Gay references. A personl interest?


Apparently for you since that is what you see. They are not gay references, they are implying femininity. There is a difference but thanks for telling me where your head is.


Documented thoroughly, some or all the hijackers took supplementary training on flight simulators in Pakistan in addition to receiving American pilot's licenses. Despite a handful of disclaimers, people who have flown airliners solidly agree the most difficult part of flying is the takeoff and landing. Once in mid-air it is mostly a matter of steering. The plane was maneuvered to hit it’s target in a way that required no unusual expertise.

During WWII hundreds of Japanese teenage boys were only ground trained on primitive manual flight simulators and managed to go up in Kamikaze aircraft and consistently hit much smaller moving ship targets in the Ocean. Worldwide millions of people fly airplanes. It's not Rocket Science.


You are completely disregarding the actual flight path we are told this plane took as well as the video of some flying perfectly parallel to the ground below it. This is not diving out of the sky to hit a target. This is maneuvering so close to the ground and maintaining the speed and trajectory that it is suppose to have flown. You are right, the 9/11 official story is perfectly logical when you start to leave out details here and there.


No plausible scenario with any credible substantiation has been put forward other than what you and others like to call the Official Story.


No plausible scenario with any credible substantiation has been put forward.


Provide a different interpretation of these events, solid evidence, and you will have a receptive audience.


Why? You have not. The government has not. The news has not. I would like you all to provide an interpretation of these events with solid evidence. This works both ways. Just because you decided to believe some things you were told with some photographs you were shown does not make it a proven story. You can believe in fairies if you like, it does not make them real.

In case you have not noticed, look at the stars in this thread. I am not looking for a receptive audience as I have no speeches to offer. I have questions I would like answered. I think that is pretty simple. I have some questions. I would like answers. What is the problem? Apparently I have a receptive audience anyway here.


Crabbing about the lack of proof is a function of your unwillingness to seek it out and examine it. Labeling what you chose not to believe as part of the so-called Official Story does not change the facts as they stand.

Get it sweetheart?


I sure do, hunnybear. I get it. There is a huge lack of proof and you inability to provide it is a function of your unwillingness to actually look at the lack of proof What proof do you have that you are holding so close to your chest? Give us a peak, man. Do you have plane parts that were positively identified as part of flight 77? Do you have evidence of passengers? How about one of the confiscated tapes? An explanation for where the wings went? What do you have? Stop trying so hard to be belligerent and try to convince me. I can play nice if you have something. Please, convince me. Unlike you, I am willing to see the other side.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 


I have a friend who worked in Pentagon City in the Old MCI building and she was outside when it happened. She doesn't feel that she saw a jet airliner hit the Pentagon. She claims it was a smaller plane that hit.

Again, she was probably freaked out that day, so take it for what that's worth. It's not every day you hear your country's under attack and you're less than a mile from the attack site.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Karilla
reply to post by jthomas
 


Maybe you could do me a favour. I have trawled through lots of eyewitness testimony that is supposed to corroborate the plane hitting the building. Understandably, seeing a jet coming towards them, they all either covered their heads or ran away.


There were eyewitnesses all over that did not need to duck or otherwise avert their eyes.





I haven't found one person that actually saw the plane hit the building facade. If you could supply one, since you are obviously au fait with the supporting evidence, I would be grateful.


The testimony has been available. I have given you one source already. Here it is again:

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...


From the testimonies I have read it seems eminently possible that the plane could have flown over the building at not much more than roof height.


Then provide the positive evidence no one has ever done demonstrating a flyover occurred. Explain why their are NO eyewitness reports from any of the hundreds of people ALL around the Pentagon in a perfect position to see ANY flyover.


My own hunch (it is no more) is that it wasn't a missile that hit the building, but some kind of bomb slung underneath the plane that smashed the generator and detonated on contact with the building, sending the bulk of it's energy through the building to punch through the inner ring. Plane wreckage was then brought to the site by first responders or was to hand already.


That is just an appeal to ignorance and a fanciful hunch. Why not just stick to the actual evidence?


I'm sorry you think me ignorant to disbelieve the official version of events, but that is the case.


As long as you fool yourself that there is no evidence, ask the same questions that have been addressed and/or debunked for years, and believe that it's all some "story", you will remain stuck where you are.

You are perfectly capable of educating yourself on the evidence and questioning the validity of claims of 9/11 "Truthers."


Here is the crust jt. Unless you have me on ignore. You have never ever come close to giving proof of any witness of any 911 attack that has been cross examined. You can crawl into a cave of ineptitude if you like.
Until the ignorant, nut job, lame, Gl, spook world can even manufacture a cross examined witness or BETTER yet a crossed examined PERP. I say Ba to them.
If you no comprende Google CROSS EXAMINATION.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
So tezz, where is your proof that something else happened?

I don't need to prove anything, Genradek. I don't make claims about what happened.


Originally posted by GenRadek
You crow and crow about how jthomas cant provide you pictures of passengers strapped to chairs in the debris, which was confirmed by two sources, who WERE there

Yet, there's no proof of it to be shown.

Funny, that.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 10:15 PM
link   




The videos taken from the Pentagon area after the 9/11 attacks were mentioned in the Maguire declaration, where FBI Special Agent, Jacqueline Maguire responded (see below) to a request from Scott Bingham.
In Summary:

* She determined that the FBI had 85 videotaptes that might be relevant. Of those, 56 "of these videotapes did not show either the Pentagon building, the Pentagon crash site, or the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11."
* Of the 29 remaining videotapes, 16 "did not show the Pentagon crash site and did not show the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon."
* Of the 13 remaining tapes which showed the Pentagon crash site, 12 "only showed after the impact of Flight 77."
* The videotape taken from the Citgo gas station did not show the impact.
* No videotapes were located from the Sheraton Hotel, though she located a videotape from the Doubletree Hotel.

source




Notice that none of the security videos from the Pentagon rooftop cameras which were stored on hard drives in the basement security office are on Special Agent Jacqueline Maguire's list are they? These three were facing the Naval Annex and might have shown the real aircraft flying Over the Naval Annex.



Nor are the camera videos which were facing the Pentagon from the Naval Annex on the Maguire list. Therefore the Defense Department possesses videos which would prove their 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY if an aircraft actually flew into the Pentagon. But they are censored aren't they? National Security must mean protect the 9-11 perps wouldn't it?

Unfortunately for the bad guys, they dare not release and show those videos because they would show the actual aircraft flying Over the Naval Annex and nowhere near the downed light poles. They might also show somebody staging the light poles and the taxi and dragging them around across the ground and setting pieces on guardrails.



Photoshopping the Pentagon area videos in a convincing manner would be much much too difficult. Look how badly they screwed up the parking lot security videos.





[edit on 9/12/09 by SPreston]



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
You crow and crow about how jthomas cant provide you pictures of passengers strapped to chairs in the debris, which was confirmed by two sources, who WERE there

I couldn't let this gem go without another comment about it.

Casual readers, welcome to a lesson in Logic 101 and witness how GenRadek failed it.


GenRadek's Logic:
Two sources claimed to have seen unidentified passenger bodies strapped to seats, therefore it must be true.
A dozen independent sources, videotaped on location, saw a plane approach North of Citgo, therefore it must be false.


GenRadek, you can take as many years as you like to combine your efforts with mmiichael and jthomas. I'll be waiting around for any of you to prove which passenger bodies were found strapped to the airline seats inside the Pentagon. Get cracking boys, you've failed so far and you've got a mammoth task ahead.

[edit on 12-9-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 01:59 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


They can’t prove it!
All they can do it make up fantasies to fit their stories but when it come to put up or shut up they can’t, I love it. It’s easier to spew disinformation and ridicule you, than to look at the truth.

[edit on 13-9-2009 by impressme]



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 02:36 AM
link   
Still waiting....

So here we are with the 9/11 "Truth" kiddies unable to:

- demonstrate why security cameras "should have" shown a Boeing 757.
- refute the eyewitnesses to the crash.
- provide a single eyewitness to any flyover from the hundreds around the Pentagon.
- refute any of the evidence provided them.
- contact any of the over 1,000 people involved with the Pentagon wreckage from inside the Pentagon.
- answer any question about their own claims.

The list goes on all the things are 9/11 "Truth" kiddies are unable to do while they rehash the same stuff debunked up to 8 years ago.

So with all their bluster, irrational thinking, repetition of debunked nonsense, and inability to provide a single piece of positive evidence for their claims, just what is it that they can do? Just what is it they have accomplished?



[edit on 13-9-2009 by jthomas]



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 02:55 AM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


Still waiting...

so far you cannot explain why there were no passengers bodies at the crash scene.

so far you cannot explain why no plane parts were ever identified.

so far you cannot explain where the wings went.

We actually did refute some of the crap on your list but I guess you did not feel like reading the posts you are trying to mock.

Whenever you have answers to these questions, we will be here, watching you get more and more sad with you attempts to toss the ball back in our court simply because you cannot do anything with it on yours.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
reply to post by jthomas
 


Still waiting...

so far you cannot explain why there were no passengers bodies at the crash scene.


Demonstrate that you know no passenger bodies were at the scene.


so far you cannot explain why no plane parts were ever identified.


Demonstrate how you know AA77 was not identified.


so far you cannot explain where the wings went.


Demonstrate that the wings flew away from the wreckage.


We actually did refute some of the crap on your list but I guess you did not feel like reading the posts you are trying to mock.


No, it's never been refuted.


Whenever you have answers to these questions, we will be here, watching you get more and more sad with you attempts to toss the ball back in our court simply because you cannot do anything with it on yours.


We all know that the burden of proof is entirely on your shoulders and how frustrated you are to have to face that fact. You are the ones trying to convince everyone that there is no evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon, after all.

Trying to ask the same debunked questions repeatedly instead of providing positive evidence for your claims is why you haven't accomplished a thing. You need to convince the entire world that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon. What is taking you so bloody long?

Now, stop evading your responsibilities, Lilydale, and give us those statements from the over 1,000 people who saw, handled, removed, and sorted the wreckage from inside the Pentagon.

Or tell us why you are so afraid of the evidence.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 03:17 AM
link   

As some one who worked at the Pentagon for six years right up to September of last year and experienced 9/11 first hand I'd like to interject a few thoughts.

...

3. Why isn't there more video? Without telling too much of what I know of Pentagon security, you would be suprised how few cameras there are outside the building. Humans actively patrolling a building's perimeter are a tad more effective than dozens of monitors which may or may not be watched at any given moment. Given the limited number of entrances to the facility (all highly controlled areas), cameras are generally only needed in high traffic areas like vehicle control points (such as the one this video came from). What about the surrounding buildings. I've been to the AFFEES gas station on the hill more than a hundred times and can honestly tell you I never noticed a camera pointed towards the Pentagon... that doesn't mean there isn't one, but the filling stations don't seem to be arrainged in such a way as to provide camera coverage of the pumps and the Pentagon.

As for the hotels and shops over in Pentagon row or Crystal City Mall? Why should their cameras capture the Pentagon? Commion sense, and practical security experience, would dictate that any cameras they had would necessarily be pointed at their own properties. I do know for a fact that there is a traffic camera on I-395 right next to the Pentagon, we would check it regularly towards the end of shifts to see how bad traffic was. As I recall you can see part of one of the parking lots, but like most cameras it is focused towards it's own purpose... namele monitoring traffic in I-395 for the local television stations and commuter websites.


www.bautforum.com...



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 03:20 AM
link   

The videos taken from the Pentagon area after the 9/11 attacks were mentioned in the Maguire declaration, where FBI Special Agent, Jacqueline Maguire responded (see below) to a request from Scott Bingham.
In Summary:

* She determined that the FBI had 85 videotaptes that might be relevant. Of those, 56 "of these videotapes did not show either the Pentagon building, the Pentagon crash site, or the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11."
* Of the 29 remaining videotapes, 16 "did not show the Pentagon crash site and did not show the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon."
* Of the 13 remaining tapes which showed the Pentagon crash site, 12 "only showed after the impact of Flight 77."
* The videotape taken from the Citgo gas station did not show the impact.
* No videotapes were located from the Sheraton Hotel, though she located a videotape from the Doubletree Hotel.


Continued at:flight77.info...



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 03:33 AM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


Have you not looked at the photos posted by SPreston? There is 3 cameras that we can see that are obliously not meant to see the inside of the building. Explain why none of these captured the plane.

And your 85 Videos:

A list of all the videotapes is available, which shows many of these videotapes do not have footage of the Pentagon at all. Instead, many have footage of the WTC, some are security video tapes taken from a Kinko's in Florida, etc. Some that show the Pentagon were taken days after the attacks, and some in the evening of 9/11/2001.

The security camera footage taken from around the Pentagon included the Citgo, the Doubletree, and the Pentagon parking lot. There was also video from cameras at Reagan National Airport parking garage. Both video files show smoke in the distance coming from direction of Pentagon. Another video came from a DEA HQ security camera atop 700 Army Navy Drive, Arlington, VA. The camera was repositioned after attack to show post-crash footage of Pentagon.

Footage taken after the attack included home video filmed by a tourist traveling past Pentagon and then by AP photographer who borrowed the camera, and video taken by a NBC4 Washington reporter.
Flight77.info...



[edit on 9/13/2009 by TheAntiHero420]



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Lillydale
reply to post by jthomas
 


Still waiting...

so far you cannot explain why there were no passengers bodies at the crash scene.


Demonstrate that you know no passenger bodies were at the scene.


Demonstrate that you know passenger bodies were at the scene.



so far you cannot explain why no plane parts were ever identified.


Demonstrate how you know AA77 was not identified.


This is easy. Demonstrate that it was. If it was, there would be records and it would be in the incident report. There are none and it is not. Prove me wrong.



so far you cannot explain where the wings went.


Demonstrate that the wings flew away from the wreckage.


Huh? I never said that the wings flew away from the wreckage so why would I even want to demonstrate that? Now you are just getting silly.



We actually did refute some of the crap on your list but I guess you did not feel like reading the posts you are trying to mock.


No, it's never been refuted.


No, you just refused to read it.



Whenever you have answers to these questions, we will be here, watching you get more and more sad with you attempts to toss the ball back in our court simply because you cannot do anything with it on yours.


We all know that the burden of proof is entirely on your shoulders and how frustrated you are to have to face that fact. You are the ones trying to convince everyone that there is no evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon, after all.


Keep telling yourself that. If you think repeating it will make it true, then I wish you luck. I know that you know better so it really befuddles me to see you trying this over and over again. The burden of proof lies in the makers of the claim. I make no claims. Rumsfeld did. If there was evidence of AA77, you would have no problem proving it to me. Why can't you? Why do you have to play these games instead? If the truth is what you say it is, then it would be the easiest thing in the world to prove. You cannot and you will not.


Trying to ask the same debunked questions repeatedly instead of providing positive evidence for your claims is why you haven't accomplished a thing. You need to convince the entire world that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon. What is taking you so bloody long?

Now, stop evading your responsibilities, Lilydale, and give us those statements from the over 1,000 people who saw, handled, removed, and sorted the wreckage from inside the Pentagon.

Or tell us why you are so afraid of the evidence.


What evidence? I am still waiting for this evidence but you just got done writing that diatribe about how you do not need to provide any evidence so I think that pretty much sums out how things work in your head.

Let me know when you get the part about the wings straightened out. Perhaps you can catch me on that when you understand what it is I actually said.

Until then, let me ask you one more time. What happened at the pentagon on September 11, 2001?

[edit on 13-9-2009 by Lillydale]



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheAntiHero420
reply to post by jthomas
 


Have you not looked at the photos posted by SPreston? There is 3 cameras that we can see that are obliously not meant to see the inside of the building. Explain why none of these captured the plane.


That's an appeal to incredulity.

The question is still on the table: why "should" those (or any) video cameras have caught a jet crashing into the Pentagon?

WHY can't any of you answer the question?


And your 85 Videos:

A list of all the videotapes is available, which shows many of these videotapes do not have footage of the Pentagon at all. Instead, many have footage of the WTC, some are security video tapes taken from a Kinko's in Florida, etc. Some that show the Pentagon were taken days after the attacks, and some in the evening of 9/11/2001.

The security camera footage taken from around the Pentagon included the Citgo, the Doubletree, and the Pentagon parking lot. There was also video from cameras at Reagan National Airport parking garage. Both video files show smoke in the distance coming from direction of Pentagon. Another video came from a DEA HQ security camera atop 700 Army Navy Drive, Arlington, VA. The camera was repositioned after attack to show post-crash footage of Pentagon.

Footage taken after the attack included home video filmed by a tourist traveling past Pentagon and then by AP photographer who borrowed the camera, and video taken by a NBC4 Washington reporter.
Flight77.info...

[edit on 9/13/2009 by TheAntiHero420]


The camera was repositioned after attack to show post-crash footage of Pentagon?

Too bad, eh?

Now, when do we get to hear the evidence that any video camera should have shown AA77 crashing into the Pentagon. Appeals to incredulity do not CONSTITUTE evidence.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
That's an appeal to incredulity.

The question is still on the table: why "should" those (or any) video cameras have caught a jet crashing into the Pentagon?

WHY can't any of you answer the question?


What are you talking about? This is the stupidest question on here and it has been answered. Why should video cameras capture what they are aimed at????? Do you know what video cameras are for? Do you know what they do? Why would they NOT capture the plane?

Your tactics are falling apart. I think you need to tag cameron or boone in because you are stretching so far that you are almost off the cliff.

Are you seriously asking people to explain to you why a camera should capture images? What else would those cameras be doing?



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
I'd take this with a very large grain of salt. Eye witness testimony has been proven over and over again to be notoriously unreliable.


I am sure there are a whole heck of a lot of folks sitting in prison that would be happy to agree with you. Second line.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Lillydale
reply to post by jthomas
 



Still waiting...

so far you cannot explain why there were no passengers bodies at the crash scene.


Demonstrate that you know no passenger bodies were at the scene.


Demonstrate that you know passenger bodies were at the scene.


See how this works?

1. You ask, "...explain why there were no passengers bodies at the crash scene."

2. I ask you to demonstrate the validity of YOUR claim that there were no passenger bodies at the scene.

3. Then you want me to prove your UNPROVEN claim is wrong.

What a great illustration of my point you given everyone, Lilydale!



so far you cannot explain why no plane parts were ever identified.

Demonstrate how you know AA77 was not identified.


This is easy. Demonstrate that it was. If it was, there would be records and it would be in the incident report. There are none and it is not. Prove me wrong.


Ditto.


The burden of proof lies in the makers of the claim.


But you refuse to accept the burden of proof for your claims. I just showed you.


Now, stop evading your responsibilities, Lilydale, and give us those statements from the over 1,000 people who saw, handled, removed, and sorted the wreckage from inside the Pentagon.

Or tell us why you are so afraid of the evidence.



What evidence?


The evidence that you pretend doesn't exist so won't refute.


I am still waiting for this evidence but you just got done writing that diatribe about how you do not need to provide any evidence so I think that pretty much sums out how things work in your head.


How many times do I have to tell you WHERE to get the evidence YOU have to refute? Can't you read?

So Lilydale gives us a prime example of the illogical thinking and actions of 9/11 "Truthers."

He makes claims then, instead of demonstrating those claims when asked, immediately tries to shift the burden of proof and denies ever making any claims.

When pointed to the evidence repeatedly he has to refute, Lilydale then asserts there is NO evidence.

See how that works, everyone?

So, do you all NOW understand why NO one listens to you and never will?



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by jthomas
That's an appeal to incredulity.

The question is still on the table: why "should" those (or any) video cameras have caught a jet crashing into the Pentagon?

WHY can't any of you answer the question?


What are you talking about?


I am ASKING you to demonstrate why any video camera "should have" recorded AA77 hitting the Pentagon.

NONE of you will answer the question. Duh.


This is the stupidest question on here and it has been answered. Why should video cameras capture what they are aimed at????? Do you know what video cameras are for? Do you know what they do? Why would they NOT capture the plane?


But you REFUSE to demonstrate that any of the cameras WERE aimed in such a manner that they would capture AA77 hitting the Pentagon. YOU have NO evidence that they were, or "should have."

You are just engaging in a classic appeal to incredulity and cannot support your claims.

But that's the nature of the beast, 9/11 "Truth".

Now, either demonstrate factually that any of the cameras "should have" caught AA77 hitting the Pentagon. If you can't, then withdraw your claim.



new topics

top topics



 
215
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join