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: 11
61
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

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.




flight77.info...

Straight from the website


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.


BTW Mr. Demo man, The documents are on that website. HEYYYYYY but keep lying.


[edit on 17-11-2009 by SirPatrickHenry]




posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by SirPatrickHenry
 


Exactly where am I lying? The entire premise of the thread is that there are tapes that show the impact of Flight77 and the Pentagon. There is only one that everybody has already seen from the parking lot cameras. The idea being promoted without substantiation is there are more than this one. There are not.



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 



As opposed to your self-induced delusions.


What the truth? The very truth that you continue to ignore everyday because you cant except the fact that your government lied to you, yes God forbid me for telling it.


You are on the verge of an apoplectic seizure because the FBI won't show you something that only YOU say they have.


Where is your proof that the FBI doesn’t have any of the videos?


That is really disconnected.


What is “disconnected” is you ignoring creditable evidence.


What else do you want to see that you think the bad guys are hiding from you - Loch Ness Monster? Little Green Men?


The Truth.




[edit on 17-11-2009 by impressme]



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 09:07 PM
link   
This has been my persistent and number 1 question regarding the incident at the Pentagon for over 8 years. Photos from a satellite in 1995 could show you the title of a CD laying on the front seat of your car. It's pure idiocy to think that there is not motion video or photographic evidence of the strike. And for them to even attempt to convince people that they don't have any should be sounding all sorts of alarms and raising all sorts of questions in any rational cognizant being's mind about all sorts of things but particularly about that day. That first FOIA was a joke and disgusted me so badly I stopped following this thread because it upsets me too much that people don't see this simple thing as a big red flag.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by SirPatrickHenry
 


There is only one that everybody has already seen from the parking lot cameras. The idea being promoted without substantiation is there are more than this one. There are not.


Really Hooper? There aren't more? You've seen the other 84 for yourself?


Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by SirPatrickHenry
 


Exactly where am I lying? The entire premise of the thread is that there are tapes that show the impact of Flight77 and the Pentagon.


That's not the premise of the OP's thread at all. Only in Hooper's mind is that the premise of this thread.

Try reading the OP twenty times. Maybe you'll get it. To make it simple for you: The OP's premise is that the gubmint's refusal to release all the videos raises suspicion that there is something on the videos that the gubmint don't wants us to see. Those of us with inquiring minds want to see for ourselves. We don't trust a federal gubmint which has such a sorry and long history of lying to us on nearly every conceivable subject. Others, such as Hooper, are willing to believe the gubmint when it tells them there is nothing to see here, be quiet little children, believe what your benevolent daddy tells you, move on, go play somewhere else. They just pick themselves and go play somewhere else.

By the way, I don't believe that Hooper is lying. He seems to really believe what he's saying. To be guilty of lying would require that he knows what he's saying is false. It is false. He's wrong. But he believes what he's saying nonetheless.

[edit on 11/19/2009 by dubiousone]



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by dubiousone
 


Well, that is pretty weak. The FBI listed the contents of the 83 tapes. You don't believe them, you want to see for yourself. What difference would it make? If they are lying about the contents of the tapes to cover up a massive government conspiracy why would they even release the quantity of tapes. Besides, the argument (from the conspiracy fantasy crowd) has always been that there are tapes, unlisted, that show what "really" happened.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Hooper take a second, relax, and settle down clear your mind abit. Ok now that youve done that think about this.

If there are 83 tapes that the FBI says there is footage of the 757 and some of them showing the impact as per what was told in the media. Why should we take that at face value. If i told you I had 40 tapes with undeniable ufo footage, but you cant see it, would you believe me. I very seriously doubt you would. So why should we believe the FBI just because they say the footage is exactly what they say it is, but wont let us see it.

If i had said footage of ufo's I would no doubt show it to the world as proof of my claims. To do otherwise would mean im covering up the truth or making an outlandish story. So why are we to believe the FBI isnt making up an outlandish story? Because they are the FBI and we should believe everything they tell us?
I think not



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by dubiousone
 


If they are lying about the contents of the tapes to cover up a massive government conspiracy why would they even release the quantity of tapes.


Because if they came out and said "there are NO tapes", everyone around the world would go "Huh?"

A bazillion cameras in the vicinity and there are NO tapes? Nope - that's not convincing at all. Much more plausible to say there are craploads of tapes, but there were just all pointing somewhere else at the time.

Just an idea.

Actually - didn't the FBI letter say there were quite a few tapes showing the aftermath? Why can't we see those? Surely that would prove or disprove a few contentious issues? Whether people are collecting debris or scattering it on the lawn, as some people claim, for example...

Rew



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rewey

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by dubiousone
 


If they are lying about the contents of the tapes to cover up a massive government conspiracy why would they even release the quantity of tapes.


Because if they came out and said "there are NO tapes", everyone around the world would go "Huh?"

A bazillion cameras in the vicinity and there are NO tapes? Nope - that's not convincing at all. Much more plausible to say there are craploads of tapes, but there were just all pointing somewhere else at the time.

Just an idea.

Actually - didn't the FBI letter say there were quite a few tapes showing the aftermath? Why can't we see those? Surely that would prove or disprove a few contentious issues? Whether people are collecting debris or scattering it on the lawn, as some people claim, for example...

Rew


Argument from incredulity, sorry, that doesn't hold any water. Why does there have to be tapes that show that particular angle and were recording at the time? What was so important on that side of the Pentagon that there would be CCTV's with recording capability? Not all CCTV's are recorded, some are simply for observation. Particularly those trained in areas where there is not normally human traffic or activity. As for why they don't release the videos of the scene, you know the answer.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 11:55 PM
link   
My comment below is NOT directed at any of the posters in this thread and I wanted to make that clear up front.

I do not blame anyone for wishing to believe the official story provided by the U.S. government regarding the events on 9/11. After all, many people are raised to believe what they are told by people in charge and that of their government. For them it is the thing to do and it falls within perimeters of not going against the proverbial grain. It also makes their argument/side easy to defend because those who believe official explanations do not have to work and make any effort towards developing any evidence or proof to back up their position otherwise, all they have to do is cite explanations provided by their governments, agencys etc. Its just the easiet thing to do in order to move on. As for me, it isn't a conveinant truth at all that I seek. For those who can see or rather smell, beyond the garbage that our government has dished out to us regarding the "truth" about 9/11, it demands a level of scrutiny that goes well beyond what any mainstreamer could ever or would be willing to comprehend within their neatly folded casket of lies handed to them by the government. Oklahoma City and the multi events on 9/11 are in my opinion acts of government sponsored terrorism against not only it's own citizens but of freedom itself. The politicos of our government have made the decision to create scenarios & events then carry them out for their own purposes regardless of the outcome and those they hurt & kill. While many citizens of the U.S. including some of my own family prefers to rest their intolerable pain & grief on the shoulders of government officials who come with what appears on the surface as a reliable explanation (although painful but seemingly reliable) for the events on that day, once one begins looking for the truth without the hinderance of blinders we can very easily see that all isn't what we have been told it was. There are many unanswered questions. There are people and groups that have not been held accountable, in short they got away with murder and got rich in the process. There are lies that have been forgotten by the people of our nation who once again, have resolved theirselves into a dangerous mindset of complancency. God help them when one of these events in the future go arwy in that the gov cannot control it and it spins out of total control and beyond comprehension.



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Still the same ridiculous obfuscatory argument from Hooper. It is getting a bit old, raw, and starting to chafe a bit.

The extremely simple point, Hooper, is that the evidence exists. "They" say they have it and that there's nothing to see here. Rather than endlessly insist that it shows nothing, or that what it shows perfectly supports the official story, just show us the evidence and we'll judge for ourselves. Why do we insist on judging for ourselves? Because we don't trust what we're told by those who have a long and proven history of lying to us. It's that simple. But I'm sure you'll find this post to be cause for yet another repetition of your standard line on this issue.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
As for why they don't release the videos of the scene, you know the answer.


I'm not sure what you're implying as the reason, here...

Are you saying it's 'national security' or because it would be insensitive to the surviving family members of those on board?

I only ask, because they allegedy released the CCTV footage of the plane impacting (or what they claim is a plane). What is more insensitive to the surviving family members - the impact and explosion that actually killed their loved ones, or the scene afterwards showing hundreds of people united, trying to offer aid and assistance and help? I know which I would find more insensitive, and that one's already been released.

And before you say there were no survivors on the plane to 'aid and assist', I'm talking about people in the building as well...

Rew



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper


Argument from incredulity, sorry, that doesn't hold any water. Why does there have to be tapes that show that particular angle and were recording at the time? What was so important on that side of the Pentagon that there would be CCTV's with recording capability? Not all CCTV's are recorded, some are simply for observation. Particularly those trained in areas where there is not normally human traffic or activity. As for why they don't release the videos of the scene, you know the answer.


exactly. it was a wall that faced the freeway, with a heliport just above it. the side that would have constant monitoring would have been the parking lot side of the pentagon (south of the impact area).

Other than, it was a plain wall.


videos did not belong to the govt. the govt has to return the videos to the rightful owners, and its up to the owners to either give up their rights to it or if they wanted, completely erase them.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by dubiousone
reply to post by hooper
 


Still the same ridiculous obfuscatory argument from Hooper. It is getting a bit old, raw, and starting to chafe a bit.

The extremely simple point, Hooper, is that the evidence exists. "They" say they have it and that there's nothing to see here. Rather than endlessly insist that it shows nothing, or that what it shows perfectly supports the official story, just show us the evidence and we'll judge for ourselves. Why do we insist on judging for ourselves? Because we don't trust what we're told by those who have a long and proven history of lying to us. It's that simple. But I'm sure you'll find this post to be cause for yet another repetition of your standard line on this issue.


The refrain is getting "old" because you keep singing the same song. YOU don't trust "them" because you think they are lying. YOU think they are lying because they are covering up and YOU think they are covering up because they are lying. And around and around and around. Yet, for some reason you expect a different answer. Try a different tune.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by RipCurl

Originally posted by hooper


Argument from incredulity, sorry, that doesn't hold any water. Why does there have to be tapes that show that particular angle and were recording at the time? What was so important on that side of the Pentagon that there would be CCTV's with recording capability? Not all CCTV's are recorded, some are simply for observation. Particularly those trained in areas where there is not normally human traffic or activity. As for why they don't release the videos of the scene, you know the answer.


exactly. it was a wall that faced the freeway, with a heliport just above it. the side that would have constant monitoring would have been the parking lot side of the pentagon (south of the impact area).

Other than, it was a plain wall.


videos did not belong to the govt. the govt has to return the videos to the rightful owners, and its up to the owners to either give up their rights to it or if they wanted, completely erase them.


That entire wall has cameras on it aimed in the directions any approaching plane would have been.

The footage we were given is of poorer quality than any $150 dollar camera could see at the time but I am sure the Pentagon had no reason to update their equipment to capture more than a couple of frames, it is not like they are guarding important things like cigarettes and slim jims.

Which tapes were returned to which owners?



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   
I think most posters are lured in to the "FBI has all the evidence" trap, as usual when this subject comes up.
Of course there were more than those 85 FBI-collected videos.

Of course there is only one entity who had all the truly important footage on tape, disk or flashcards, and that is the Pentagon and the Department of Defence.
And not the FBI, because the FBI will have been offered only those with no importance to the physical "impact" or explosions. And those in command still prove to have an existing reason for treason.
And what shall that be?

If you truly believe there was no video surveillance running that day when the US president was expected back from his Florida trip in the early afternoon to land on that heli port right in front of the "impact" zone roof mounted cameras, you are in denial of certain procedures which will never be breached, if so, only in treasonous situations.

And it was the west wall reconstruction site, where for many months massive reinforcement work had been done and was in its last week before completion and closing. And you expect that basically very cautious DoD, not to have massive video surveillance on exactly that reconstruction site?
Do you really expect them to let multiple construction groups go unnoticed, entering in and leaving out of that building?

In one of my first posts on this forum I gave a news report where a Major or Lt. Colonel rushed out of his office to the video surveillance control room near the Pentagon's Main entrance where he "backtracked and looked at the footage of the event in awe".

As is well known for those studying the 911 events from day one, there were more than one explosions reported, by witnesses and even the one recorded by one photographer on film, from Washington Boulevard in front of the hole.

The famous first shot of the impact hole with that white hot explosion cloud spitting out, about half a minute after "impact".
A flash-over, gaseous cloud ignition, known from other fires?

That photographer told the reporters later that he jumped out of his car further north and ran back to shoot that first image of that white hot second explosion. And we see the famous first patrol car already parked on the grass in that photo, to the left. The police car recorded while passing the parking boots in those two parking boot videos released by the DOD many years later.

When was this second explosion recorded in those TWO famous, parking boot cameras "impact videos" from the DOD?
The two videos released years later than the first "leaked" five frames from that tape.

I have not found that shortly after "impact", also separately photographed second explosion in either of those DOD videos..... and these recorded for quite some additional time after the initial "impact" event, enough time for that officer to park his police car on the lawn; and to give the photographer those circa 30 seconds to sprint back to the spot where he took that photo of the second, spitting out, explosion out of the "impact" hole.

Or was this second explosion much later after "impact" photographed?
I don't think so. Since we had the recorded time stamp of that photo when it was released, shown in its own digital photo Properties.

A task for investigative minds:
How many seconds or minutes passed by after the moment of the recorded impact in those 2 on-line released DOD parking boot videos?
One video with a clear view over the lawn with the west wall in the left part of the video, and one nearly identical video, however with the opposite boot in its line of sight.
Compare that amount of time with the time stamp of the second explosion photo.
If that time stamp fits in the video total time frames after impact, then why is that second explosion not to be found in those two videos?



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Not any one left who will understand the implications of a second explosion, officially endorsed in a real time photograph, which second explosion does not show on those two DOD videos showing an "impact" explosion and then only fire and smoke for a prolonged time, no second explosion shown in these videos at all ?

BTW, you must not send Freedom of Information requests to the FBI, but only to the Department of Defense, for receiving withheld recorded video material of the surveillance cameras on, in, above and around the Pentagon west wall for the time period of three weeks before 9/11, and of the whole day of 9/11, but especially of the moment of "impact" and the hour before and after that event. And all recordings from the Main Entrance video surveillance Room, for the time period before, during and after the Pentagon attack on 9/11.

Especially the traffic on Washington Boulevard will show some significant discrepancies with the stories of some key witnesses interviewed in the first hours after the Pentagon event.
I posted the first TV-aired video of the impact site, shot from the south only 2 minutes after officially endorsed "impact" time stamp, and you can clearly see all traffic in all visible lanes on Washington Boulevard move with normal speeds, no traffic jam to see, while you see the smoke already rise hundreds of meters. Traffic is still running smoothly on both sides of that road and the time of day is clearly to see in the bottom right corner.
How about that?

[edit on 7/12/09 by LaBTop]



new topics

top topics



 
61
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join