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.

 

So let me get this straight: The Pentagon has video tapes of the Boeing hitting their own building..

page: 10
61
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Really? You see "plane parts"? I see twisted metal that could be from anything and anywhere. How do you know they are "plane parts"?


The same way you 'know' these are plane parts...



Unless they, too, could be from anything and anywhere?

Rew




posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rewey

Originally posted by hooper
Really? You see "plane parts"? I see twisted metal that could be from anything and anywhere. How do you know they are "plane parts"?


The same way you 'know' these are plane parts...



Unless they, too, could be from anything and anywhere?

Rew


Yes, absolutely. That's why I don't think you can simply look at a few photos and jump to wild conclusions, you do. You look at the photos that are available and then make wild guesses. Which is fun until you realize that people are using that process to accuse others of murder.

But I guess you then agree that you can't look at the photos of the crash site in say, Shanksville and say that because you don't recognize anything as plane parts then there was no plane crash there. Noting of course, the photo of the fuselage section with the portal window that is recognizable as coming from a plane but is quickly dismissed because of lame excuses like part numbers and nobody personnally sent the doubters the chain of custory documents.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Yes, absolutely. That's why I don't think you can simply look at a few photos and jump to wild conclusions, you do...

...But I guess you then agree that you can't look at the photos of the crash site in say, Shanksville and say that because you don't recognize anything as plane parts then there was no plane crash there...

...lame excuses like part numbers and nobody personnally sent the doubters the chain of custory documents.


Please don't confuse me with others on this site. I've never said I don't believe a plane crashed at Shanksville - I'm simply suggesting that it might not have happened the way the OS seems to claim it did.

And before you say "What OS???", like you are wont to do, it's the "let's roll" version emblazoned on numerous memorials, and shown in awful dramatisations like the movies 'United 93' and 'Flight 93'. That OS version.

And I've never argued anything about 'chain of custody' and 'burden of proof', because I don't find those helpful for encouraging worthwhile debate...

Rew



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 11:48 PM
link   
They don't have any tapes.

What is the difference in us watching the tapes and the people that actually saw the planes go into the twin towers?

I see no difference.



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by capgirl
They don't have any tapes.

What is the difference in us watching the tapes and the people that actually saw the planes go into the twin towers?

I see no difference.


Its all a moot point anyway. If there is no evidence then that is evidence of a cover up, if evidence is presented it is immeadiatley dismissed as doctored, fabricated or the product of "disinfo agents", shills for the government or co-conspirators and hence, evidence of a cover up.



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by capgirl
 


Capgirl, how can you NOT see a difference

It's eyewitnesses versus video evidence.

Hooper, what are you talking about

The Pentagon footage wasn't dismissed instantly, although it didn't take long to figure out that there was no 757 to be seen.

Come on you two, think! It's not illegal.........yet.




posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 02:39 AM
link   
reply to post by capgirl
 


What? I thought this thread was about the Pentagon.

2nd line.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 02:55 AM
link   
reply to post by vehemes terra eternus
 


You're much too genteel in your response to Hooper. That wasn't his first post on this thread.

Hooper espouses the view that you should all be good little children, not question authority, just accept what your surrogate daddy and mommy the PTB tell you, and othewrwise just STFU!

CapGirl's on the wrong thread. This one is about the Pentagon not the twin Towers.

The OP makes a good point. There were numerous video recordings seized that day. They are being withheld. Why? National security? Because they are so-called "classified"? Apparently, not one video shows a jetliner crashing into the Pentagon. If there was one which showed such an event it would have been on all the news channels within days of the event. However, there is not a single video which shows that to have happened. How do we know this? Because the seized videos have not been released. It's just that simple! Hooper's blather notwithstanding.

There may be one or more videos which show what really happened at the Pentagon on 9-11-2001, but they will not be released because the real criminals are apparently still in control. The PTB could easily prove that everyone who believes this is wrong just by releasing the original videos showing us what really happened and make them available for independent forensic analysis.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by dubiousone
reply to post by vehemes terra eternus
 


You're much too genteel in your response to Hooper. That wasn't his first post on this thread.

Hooper espouses the view that you should all be good little children, not question authority, just accept what your surrogate daddy and mommy the PTB tell you, and othewrwise just STFU!

CapGirl's on the wrong thread. This one is about the Pentagon not the twin Towers.

The OP makes a good point. There were numerous video recordings seized that day. They are being withheld. Why? National security? Because they are so-called "classified"? Apparently, not one video shows a jetliner crashing into the Pentagon. If there was one which showed such an event it would have been on all the news channels within days of the event. However, there is not a single video which shows that to have happened. How do we know this? Because the seized videos have not been released. It's just that simple! Hooper's blather notwithstanding.

There may be one or more videos which show what really happened at the Pentagon on 9-11-2001, but they will not be released because the real criminals are apparently still in control. The PTB could easily prove that everyone who believes this is wrong just by releasing the original videos showing us what really happened and make them available for independent forensic analysis.


You are more than welcome to question authority, however, a sign of maturity is accepting the possibility that you may not like an answer or the possibilty that there may not be an answer.

Just out of curiosity, who is the PTB? and exactly who would the non-existant tapes be made available to for "independent analysis"? Would this be you? And why should I believe you? Questioning doesn't end at authority, you know.



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by vehemes terra eternus
reply to post by capgirl
 

Capgirl, how can you NOT see a difference

It's eyewitnesses versus video evidence.


I might be wrong, but I think capgirl is asking why we're free to see as much footage of the WTC planes, but for some reason there seems to be footage from the Pentagon we're NOT allowed to see, ostensibly due to 'national security', or some such thing...

Ie. plenty of people allegedly witnessed it - why not release the footage for everyone else...

Rew



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rewey

Originally posted by vehemes terra eternus
reply to post by capgirl
 

Capgirl, how can you NOT see a difference

It's eyewitnesses versus video evidence.


I might be wrong, but I think capgirl is asking why we're free to see as much footage of the WTC planes, but for some reason there seems to be footage from the Pentagon we're NOT allowed to see, ostensibly due to 'national security', or some such thing...

Ie. plenty of people allegedly witnessed it - why not release the footage for everyone else...

Rew


Wow - so you've jumped right to the tapes existing and are know questioning why you can't see them. Where is all this wonderful skepticism? With absouletly zero evidence that they exist you have accepted that they exist because someone anaymously suggested it on the internet.



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 10:35 PM
link   
we cant see the video and its a threat to their national security because it would reveal the real story wich they dont want us to know and if that happend we would all storm the pentagon and white house and burn it to the ground thats why its a national security risk



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 03:49 AM
link   
I would like to see one scrap of any form of evidence that it was an airplane where are the enginese ,scraps of aluminum etc ???



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Wow - so you've jumped right to the tapes existing and are know (sic)questioning why you can't see them. Where is all this wonderful skepticism? With absouletly zero evidence that they exist you have accepted that they exist because someone anaymously suggested it on the internet.


Where have I suggested that? I'm merely clarifying what capgirl said, because it seemed that everyone misunderstood her.

Debate what she said, not what you misinterpreted her as saying...

Rew



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 01:40 AM
link   
I find it so amusing of people who take the government every word as truth without investigating it. Any open minded person who is willing to research “all” sides of the 911 events instead of taken only one side of the 911 events of the government side of the events, as if they have been so forth right with coming through with any truth full information to begin with.

Fact! No video, no plane, that is a fact, does anyone want to really discuss this issues.
If a real Boeing 757 slammed into the Pentagon we would have a video of it somewhere don’t you all agree? I am so sick of GL making excuses for the government of not presenting Americans with the truth. The only reason we do not see an airplane slamming into the pentagon is that no airplane hit the Pentagon period. If an airplane hit the pentagon, WHERE IS IT?

If there was nothing to hide then why did the FBI confiscate every video at the pentagon and every single video that business had cameras pointing at the pentagon? In my opinion, I think something very incriminating are on all these videos, perhaps something that may prove a false flag.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Can you really, really not think of another reason that the FBI may have wanted to take the recordings of the 9/11 incident other than trying to cover up a massive conspiracy? Does this mean then, that everytime a crime is committed and law enforcement collects any recording medium in the location of the crime then it was a conspiracy?

Try real hard - why else would the FBI want to see those tapes?

Just for the record - any private property confiscated by law enforcement as being material to a criminal matter remains private property. The actual owner calls on whether or not to release the property unless it is entered into as evidence in a criminal proceeding.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


You still can’t let go of the OS lie. You are so loyal.
Why do you believe in this fairytale? I bet you won’t answer my question.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 07:47 PM
link   
So let me get this straight: The Pentagon has video tapes of the Boeing hitting their own building..

No.....It was actually Santa Claus and his reindeer that smashed into the Pentagon and they are keeping that classified so as not to upset the children....


PEACE and LOVE...



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Yes, how dare I believe in the fairytale. As opposed to your self-induced delusions. You are on the verge of an apoplectic seizure because the FBI won't show you something that only YOU say they have. That is really disconnected. What else do you want to see that you think the bad guys are hiding from you - Loch Ness Monster? Little Green Men?



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Hi, I'm relatively unfamiliar with both sides of the plane hitting pentagon argument. What did the government present as evidence that a plane had hit? Is there an official Pentagon report, or are the details in the 9/11 commission report? I have seen bits and pieces like the flight data records, DNA and bits of airplane etc, but looking for the whole "official" story...

thanks!



new topics

top topics



 
61
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join