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: 5
61
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 12:55 PM
link   
A missile hit the Pentagon. The collapsed section of the Pentagon was no more than 79 ft. across while the width of the plane was 116 ft. across. There was no visible damage where the wings should of hit; not even the windows were broken. Even if the wings did vaporize on impact as the official reports said there would still be at least a mark where the wings hit but there was none.




posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   
GenRadek

“The Pentagon is not a fortress. It's an office building. It's not Area 51, it's not Cheyenne Mountain, it's not Ft. Knox, it's not a nuclear missile base, it's not a submarine pen. It does not have tanks inside, or special aircraft, or secret weapons, or missile pods, or super soldiers. It's an office building for the US Military.”

fleabit

“Do you really think that releasing a video that even showed the passenger plane with the plane # clearly displayed, flying into the Pentagon would "shut people up?" I don't.”

dvsmike

“a plane hit the pentagon and thats it.... the video released wasnt great but any other evidence that were to come out would still be questioned.”


Not going to answer the questions? If it doesn’t matter, then why should it matter? I see.........



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Doomsday 2029
 


oh no I understand, I was just trying to head off any other ridicules arguments that would arise without a doubt in this topic.


As for why they are not releasing the tapes? Like I said, could be the bureaucratic red-tape that is still so prevalent in our govt. It could be hardheaded officials that don't want to admit they goofed up, or they don't think that showing the videos to the general public will do much good in the long run.

www.flight77.info...
I do believe someone already posted this before, but what if all this is a misunderstanding, and these 85 videos are indeed the ones that were the reported "confiscated" tapes, but they have been already released?I know some people like to lie and twist around (not you my friend dont worry!
) and make it sound like there are MORE tapes out there somewhere, but what if thats a load of BS and the answer is already before our eyes?



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 01:16 PM
link   
If anybody actually believes the official 9/11 story, they need their head looking at



The head hijackers passport being found in the road below the Twin Towers with not a scratch on it.

The papers and furniture NOT on fire in the small hole in the Pentagon where supposedly an airliner went through full of fuel.

It's a complete joke.

But why did they do this false flag? What did they (US Government) get out of it or achieve?

Please somebody fill me in on the reasons why this clear False Flag happened?



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Ive thought about this before, and IMO there are only 3 reasons for not releasing the videos, one or a combination of these factors might warrant a cover-up.

A secret weapon was used to disintegrate the plane.

The footage is offensive; would lead to public outrage, forced resignations, compensatory and punitive damages, that sort of thing.

The Fifth Amendment aka self-incrimination.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   
How was the FBI able to steal all the private videos of the pentagon event so quickly? It's as though they were waiting for the "go" signal to be given after a pre-planned event. They seem to have known ahead of time where all the cameras were located and where to go to confiscate the videos before any could be turned over to a troublesome member of the news media.

Yes, the FBI stole those videos. They are pivate property. What gives the FBI right to steal, conceal, withhold, and perhaps ultimately destroy private recordings of this very public event?

Now, eight years later, what's shown by the many videos is no longer a national security issue. if anything, it's a private issue. Their continued concealment can only prevent the truth from being revealed. It seems that "national security" and "classified information" have too often become little more than ploys used by individuals who occupy official positions to conceal their and their friends' official wrongdoing and crimes.

America is in a sad state of affairs.

Why can't 300,000,000 American citizens get their act together enough to bring several thousand or fewer criminals to justice?

Every member of the federal and local governments who are involved in this coverup can be identified from the lowest foot-soldier to those orchestrating the events, including the individual FBI agents who went to the variopus private locations and stole the videos. Their bosses who gave the ordres can be identified. Their bosses' bosses, and on up the ladder, can all be identified, all the way up to the ringleaders. Why hasn't anything been done? Are they so powerful that no-one dares to make a move against them?

But there's a glimmer of hope in that there are 300,000,000 of us and only several thousand of "them".

[edit on 11/5/2009 by dubiousone]



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   
[removed double post]

[edit on 11/5/2009 by dubiousone]



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by JayinAR
Oh, come on.

The Pentagon is under surveilance 24-7... anyone who even hints otherwise is an idiot.

The Pentagon is likely under constant satellite surveilance as well as CCTV, infrared, etc.

It is the most important building in the US (military wise)... It is monitored closely.

btw, OP, this is the first of these threads I've participated in in quite some time. Good thread.

Simple and to the point.

For most, this subject is easy to get confused in... Who cares about the technical differences in the different "how did it happen" theories? The fact is that we aren't being told the truth and this AXIOM presented here in this thread illustrates it perfectly.

The Pentagon was not hit by a 747. If it had been, they would have had no problems showing that footage to the world. If it had been, they would have "blown it up" like they did the footage of the WTC buildings being hit.

Why isn't it detrimental to "national security" to show our most important financial centers being hit by the same planes?

Are they afraid that the video will show invasion plans blowing in the wind in the aftermath of the explosion?

It is often easy to be drug down in logistics.... How about common sense?

S&F


Exactly, if it was hit by a plane then they would have shown that 6 days to sunday. That damage that was done didn't look like a plane, it looked like a missile or cruise missile. Also what about the other footage from other stores and places that would be in line of the pentagon hit, I heard that those tapes where confiscated. What, it's national security that a PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON. Also what happened to the anti-aircraft defenses that this installation has, don't tell me that they where told to stand down too? Yea, there's more to this story than they are letting on.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Jor-El
 


None of those excuses work, particulalry "self-incrimination". That privilege does not allow a criminal to steal evidence, tamper, withhold, and destroy it.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Wow. Are my questions that difficult to answer? Hello……..disinform……uhm… I mean intelligent ATS members with differing opinions, can you help me?



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jor-El
Ive thought about this before, and IMO there are only 3 reasons for not releasing the videos, one or a combination of these factors might warrant a cover-up.

A secret weapon was used to disintegrate the plane.

The footage is offensive; would lead to public outrage, forced resignations, compensatory and punitive damages, that sort of thing.

The Fifth Amendment aka self-incrimination.


Or Number four - they don't exist.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   
I will simplify:

News stations showed the fire department on scene doing there job. I saw Pentagon personnel and police running around on live TV. They showed up close shots of the hole in the building. You could see into the building in certain shots. They showed footage from the air, footage from the security building. Close shots and shots from the nearby overpass. The video of the building, property, fire personnel, pentagon personnel and their responses didn’t seem to be a problem as none of the news video footage was taken.

So why is the crash the sensitive part? If the building had defenses they obviously didn’t work because the plane supposedly hit the building. It’s only the video that shows the actual plane inbound or any close up video of the plane hitting the building they seem to be concerned with. Why is all of the other footage ok? It was a commercial jet for god sake! What’s the big secret? You can go to any airport and take video of pretty much any plane you want.

So why not the video of the plane?



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by liveandletlive
Wow. Are my questions that difficult to answer? Hello……..disinform……uhm… I mean intelligent ATS members with differing opinions, can you help me?


Sorry, there is nothing to be done. If the tapes did exist and they were released they would be immeadiately dismissed as a hoax. You probably have heard versions of the process before. If there were a clear picture of AA77 headed into the building the next question would be "quite the coincidence the Penatgon just happened to have a camera pointed in that direction even though there is nothing there but lawn between the building and the highway, just way tooooo convenient".

Its really a perfect system. Evidence that does exist is dismissed as fabrication, ergo proving a conspiracy evidence that doesn't exist is due to a cover up, ergo proving a conspiracy.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by liveandletlive
Wow. Are my questions that difficult to answer? Hello……..disinform……uhm… I mean intelligent ATS members with differing opinions, can you help me?


Sorry, there is nothing to be done. If the tapes did exist and they were released they would be immeadiately dismissed as a hoax. You probably have heard versions of the process before. If there were a clear picture of AA77 headed into the building the next question would be "quite the coincidence the Penatgon just happened to have a camera pointed in that direction even though there is nothing there but lawn between the building and the highway, just way tooooo convenient".

Its really a perfect system. Evidence that does exist is dismissed as fabrication, ergo proving a conspiracy evidence that doesn't exist is due to a cover up, ergo proving a conspiracy.


Yeah ok so back to my questions:

So why is the crash the sensitive part? If the building had defenses they obviously didn’t work because the plane supposedly hit the building. It’s only the video that shows the actual plane inbound or any close up video of the plane hitting the building they seem to be concerned with. Why is all of the other footage ok? It was a commercial jet for god sake! What’s the big secret? You can go to any airport and take video of pretty much any plane you want.

edit to add: What do you mean "if they exist"? The FBI says the took the videos for reasons of "national security". Now it's "if they exist"? Come on hoops, you can do better than that!



[edit on 5-11-2009 by liveandletlive]

[edit on 5-11-2009 by liveandletlive]



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by liveandletlive
 


It's not important. Like I said, if it did exist it would just be dismissed as fake.

What is important is the tactic. First, appeal to conventional wisdom, i.e. the Pentagon is a fortress bristling with CCTV's and the latest in recording formats. Ignore the fact that the building is an administrative headquarters and the government is usually the last group to get the latest anything. Then exploit the CW by promoting the assumption that if the CW is true (and it must be otherwise it wouldn't be the CW) then there is something missing. The hope is to gain mass appeal by keeping the basics simple. Second, appeal to the perception that everyone thinks the government and its employees are to be assumed evil unless proven otherwise.

The problem comes in the second phase. Most Americans harbor a fairly healthy cynicism regarding the government, but more specifically their elected officials. However, most Americans do not harbor the belief that all agents and employees of the government are assumed to be evil unless proven otherwise. That's where it falls apart, even if the first CW can hold some water among many Americans they are satisfied with the testimony of firefighters, military and law enforecement professionals that have attested to what happened there, specifically, that a commercial plane crashed into the building.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by dvsmike
a plane hit the pentagon and thats it.... the video released wasnt great but any other evidence that were to come out would still be questioned.


Are you really that brainwashed that you don't even want any proof? You just believe whatever your told?



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   
The less people are involved in committing a crime the less chance for mother bitch to side with a hidden flaw. yet we know that there were many people who committed the crime and who saw it. we also know that generally military are very well organised, well equipped, and well trained, yet we also know that generally military are not very smart. So, if you attack them from an angle or prospective they are not directly trained for, their average menthal capacity will give in. Something that is silenced by threats or greed, can be `unravelled by offering either even more threats or more greed. Luckiliy enough society and people ar interwoven also by greed, jealousy, revenge and lust. And a what a nice thing to play these things on average minds, to allow themselves to contradict their statements and facts. Secret lover, betrayal, ..and a death bed confession, ..all we need is one tiny thread.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


I don't think anyone claimed "men in black" planted evidence at the pentagon. From what I read a lot of people said they saw a boeing 757 fly over the pentagon before something else slammed the building.

Don't forget mr rumsfeld himself stated, perhaps mistakingly, that a missle impacted the building before correcting himself. Was it an honest mishap...probably not!

And you say we don't need further evidence because everyone that was there saw what happened but what makes you certain they would be able to distinguish a boeing 757 from an advanced missle?

Lastly you should realise that every single video that had actual footage was confiscated by the authorities for national security reasons, EVEN PRIVATELY OWNED CCTV FROM THE IMMEDIATE AREA! Why would the fbi act so paranoid in this regard unless they had something to hide?

[edit on 5-11-2009 by EarthCitizen07]



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


That's one of the lamest arguments I have ever heard or read anywhere! Are you the one who has been posting the same or similar argument in other 9/11 threads, i.e. that it's OK for the PTB to withhold the best evidence because we the people aren't capable of comprehending it and therefore would not believe it anyway! That argument is pure unadulterated hogwash. I hope most ATS members are a bit smarter than to fall for your nonsense. Your are profoundly foolish to think that we are fools enough to accept your stupid premise. Mods: Please notice that I said his premise, not he, is stupid.

[edit on 11/5/2009 by dubiousone]



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Crash site at Pentagon...


There's no doubt that we've been lied to.
If a plane actually crashed into the side of the Pentagon, there would be big pieces of the the jet laying around. For example the picture below is of a Spanair jetliner crash. Notice the... PLANE?! I gotta get outta this thread, making me want to hulk out!




Omni



new topics

top topics



 
61
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join