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.

 

Simple explanation for suppression of Pentagon impact footage

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   
I have never put too much stock into the fact that the government would try to suppress the video footage of the Pentagon impact. Truthers usually like to point to this suppression of footage as indicative of a government cover-up as to what actually hit the Pentagon and while this may be true, there is also another very reasonable explanation that I'll put forward in a minute.

First, I'd like to point out that I do not believe the official conspiracy theory regarding 9/11. I do not believe that Al Qaeda, acting alone, planned and carried out the attacks. I am not a "debunker", only a truth seeker, regardless of where ever that truth may take me. My ultimate goal with this post is to possibly eliminate an often used argument so that we may try and get closer to the truth, whatever that truth may be and regardless of whether it fits my over-all theory of what happened on that day.

It is not within the scope of this post to argue whether a plane [AA flight 77] did or did not hit the Pentagon. It is also not within the scope of this post to delve into whether or not the government is lying to us about the events of 9/11. This post is only to give a simple and suitable explanation as to why the government would not want actual video footage of the Pentagon impact to be made public.

With that being said, I'll explain why there would be a perfectly good explanation for the government to not release footage of the actual airplane hitting the Pentagon, if indeed it was actually a plane, and why the government would confiscate all video tapes that were pointed at the Pentagon during the time in question.

Now, we all know by now that this part of the Pentagon was freshly "redone" and that it was reinforced. Well, we first have to understand how the military defines reinforcement. For instance, we know that there are technologies, such as reactive armor but certainly not limited to reactive armor that will lessen the damage or lethality of certain explosives and projectiles.

I could only assume that the Pentagon would have such technology, especially the newly reinforced side of the Pentagon. If the Pentagon had some technology that lessened the impact of explosives or projectiles, I'm sure it would be kept very secret, as to not alert the "enemy" to what is needed to penetrate or destroy such technology. This technology could be currently used on embassies or other US interests in hostile locations around the world, which would make the need for secrecy even greater.

I myself was in the Army, so I do know that many of these technologies do exist and they are super secret for the purpose of the enemy not being able to compensate for or defeat the technology. Just as reactive armor was kept very secret when it was first invented, so too would other technologies of the same purpose.

When the first video of the Pentagon explosion was released by the government, I started to doubt whether this explanation could be used as a viable excuse. However, there are enough frames removed from the video and it is at such an angle to where any kind of armor technology would not be given away. Also, notice how the explosion gets pushed outwards and upwards that would seem to confirm some sort of armor technology being used. If no technology was used, the explosion would simply follow the airplane through the building.



Of course, this does not prove that AA Flight 77 or even an airplane hit the Pentagon, only that some type of reactive armor or other technology could have been in place, therefore giving a reasonable explanation as to why the government would suppress video footage of the actual impact. This may or may not be the reason for this footage suppression but it is a viable explanation.

--airspoon

Edited to fix video.

[edit on 27-3-2010 by airspoon]

[edit on 27-3-2010 by airspoon]

[edit on 27-3-2010 by airspoon]

[edit on 27-3-2010 by airspoon]




posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   
G'day airspoon!

I like your thread, the way you present your argument and lay down the ground rules for the discussion.


The vid doesn't seem to work for me (did you copy and paste everything after the = ?), however most of us know the one you're referring to:



I think that while you may be right in some regards, I think it unlikely that this can explain all of the recordings being withheld. For example, I'd bet there are frames where the plane is captured coming towards the building (if the OS is right of course).

There must have been literally dozens (if not more) cameras that caught the approach, I mean how many security cameras would have been pointing at the wall?

However, having said that, the actual impact may have been omitted from the recording above for the very reasons you say. But again, the trouble it has caused doesn't seem worth it. Also we have the before and after pics, so we can pretty much see the effectiveness of any technology pertaining to the re-enforcement of the building.

I'd like to see where this goes, and I always appreciate the views of members who just want the truth, no labels!

Welcome to ATS airspoon!





[edit on 27-3-2010 by kiwifoot]



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   
I hadn't heard the OP's angle on this discussion before, which is saying something in the ATS 9/11 forum. Kudos to him for saying something fresh on this topic.

Personally I think we will eventually see the impact footage but it will
depend on a small group of CGI geeks, sworn to secrecy, working furiously in secret labs to "punk the nation" just for laughs and because it would be "totally kyool to like, make complete idiots out of like, everybody".



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


I like your thinking however, most people who believe it was an airplane, really don't care whether they ever get presented with video-proof or 'why' they are withholding it. It matters little to them because, they already believe so.....it's pointless.

It's the people who don't believe (it was an airplane) who are asking for video-proof and that.......is where we are left!



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   
To exclude evidence and use National Security to prevent anyone from seeing it is enough of a challenge to overcome, but if your premise were true in any way shape or form, a Federal Judge authorized to review National Security evidence and even those attorneys provided with National security clearances could have reviewed the evidence and verified that some type of technology could be in jeopardy of being revealed if the videos are released to the public.

If the claim is verified, all parties concerned would keep it secret. However; when the federal government prevents anyone from reviewing it for National Security reasons and has no desire to comply with National disclosure processes with a Federal Judge authorized to hear such evidence, then it says someone is trying to hide the truth and is using National Security to do so.

This is why a Federal Judge and Federal Attorneys that have been cleared for National Security issues can and should review evidence that while it prevents the disclosure of National Secrets, also verifies that the claim is not a hoax or a lie and that the use of National Security is indeed justified and not just a convenient excuse for the government to use to hide the truth of matters.

What we have from the DOD with regard to the Pentagon is not a good faith effort to keep the truth secret while proving that it is not a lie being used to hide the truth.

Suppressing so many videos from surveillance tapes makes no sense, unless it is to hide the fact that it was not a plane, but a cruse missile. While we could speculate all day, if the government truly wanted to prove its claim, all they would have to do is allow a qualified and security cleared Federal Judge to review the film footage and decide who is telling the truth and who is trying to obstruct justice. Since they will not allow this, your premise of hiding Pentagon technology just doesn't pass the make sense test.

Good try, but as for me I don't buy the excuse that the video footage is being kept hidden because it protects some type of secret blast technology. It's being kept secret because it shows the truth and that is the last thing they want us to know.

Thanks for the posting.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   


I like your thread, the way you present your argument and lay down the ground rules for the discussion.


Thank you, just trying to get down to the truth
.



The vid doesn't seem to work for me (did you copy and paste everything after the = ?)


There, I hope it is fixed now. It was showing in the preview, but now it seems to be working, for me at least.



I think that while you may be right in some regards, I think it unlikely that this can explain all of the recordings being withheld. For example, I'd bet there are frames where the plane is captured coming towards the building (if the OS is right of course).


What if it is a general policy that was/is in place as to eliminate any slippage? The government is known to take sweeping measures like that, though you do have a good point. It still does not negate the theory, IMO.



Also we have the before and after pics, so we can pretty much see the effectiveness of any technology pertaining to the re-enforcement of the building.


Well, we don't know what the technology was, if in fact there was technology, so we can't really claim that the before and after pics are what is important to decypher. That would only be assuming that the buildling was reinforced with reactive armor as we understand it and not some knew technology that may work differently.



I'd like to see where this goes


Me too, as I'd love to hear others' thoughts on this theory.




I always appreciate the views of members who just want the truth, no labels!

Welcome to ATS airspoon!


Me too, we will be so much more productive if we only could look at the issue objectively. Again, thank you for the welcome. This board is awesome and I look forward to learning AMAP.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 

Interesting idea OP!

The reason I would argue against it is this. The "enemy" doesn't need to drive a missile or plane into the building in order to identify strengths or weaknesses. They just take pictures of the building from different angles and using different equipment.

You see, if the govt. didn't want to show that part of the building before the plane hit, then all picture taking of the pentagon would have been forbidden. See what I mean?

Second is, if after seeing the footage that is available, an "enemy" came to the conclusion that something like reactive armor is used on the pentagon (and other govt. buildings), then they simply decide to use a dual warhead system to defeat it.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by MaxBlack
 

It was not my intention to argue whether or not the government is right in keeping this footage secret, but rather to point out what would be normal behavior for the government. It would be more than appropriate to argue that the government would keep National Security issues from federal judges who have clearance to view such matters. Remember that the government compartmentalizes its information, which means the fewer who know, the better. Also, we simply don't know whether or not anyone, including judges, have seen this footage. It would be a secret that any kind of armor technology was even used, therefore they wouldn't even hint to it by giving an explanation as to why the public can't view the footage. Again, I'm not trying to argue that the government is right in keeping everyone from this footage, only that it would be normal behavior.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 



Also, notice how the explosion gets pushed outwards and upwards that would seem to confirm some sort of armor technology being used. If no technology was used, the explosion would simply follow the airplane through the building.


Huh?

This is not a scientific explanation, it is your opinion, nothing more.

Compare to the other videos, at the WTC. Do you propose that THEY also had "reactive armor"?

Do you really think that the entire wall facade of the Pentagon had such technology built in?

Sorry, this is pushing the boundaries of believability.

Furthermore, your scenario seems to completely ignore the internal structural damage to the Pentagon. Please take some time to research into the various sources that describe it.

Nice try to think "outside the box", but I think it's a wasted effort, as it is so implausible.

In addition, it relies on the false allegation that videos were confiscated in order to "hide" something. Actually, all video was taken for examination by FBI and other agencies, and NOTHING of any significance was seen, except for the one you already posted.

Cameras simpley weren't pointed at that location. Oh, and "frames missing"?

Please source that. You did know, I hope, that the parking lot security video was NOT shooting at normal 30 frames-per-second, right?

It was about one or two fps, at most. It was intended to catch sight of people and ground vehicles, for which two fps is sufficient.

NOT an airplane at nearly 500 MPH.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by The Baby Seal Club
 




The reason I would argue against it is this. The "enemy" doesn't need to drive a missile or plane into the building in order to identify strengths or weaknesses. They just take pictures of the building from different angles and using different equipment.

You see, if the govt. didn't want to show that part of the building before the plane hit, then all picture taking of the pentagon would have been forbidden. See what I mean?

Second is, if after seeing the footage that is available, an "enemy" came to the conclusion that something like reactive armor is used on the pentagon (and other govt. buildings), then they simply decide to use a dual warhead system to defeat it.


The reactive armor couldn't be seen until something hit it so it wouldn't matter if people could take pictures or not. It's not something you could see just by looking at the building, as this type of technology is built into buildings such as embassies. The only pictures that would matter, would be pictures that are snapped at the exact split second of impact and at particular angles.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Nice try, and good idea, but I don't buy it for a milli-second.

As I understand everything but the few frames that were released has never been seen by anyone outside those who want it concealed.

No excuse for that and screams of massive guilt on the part of people in (what used to be)OUR government.

JFK was spot on about the secrecy and those who want it... they seem to be firmly in control.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   
How much information on secret “reactive” armor technology could the rest of the world gather from a 30 second video showing the full footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon?

What in the video could possibly give other countries a leg up on our secret technology?

The only information any country could gather from the full footage would be that the Pentagon does in fact have secret armor technology. I and the rest of the world should consider this a given, of course the Pentagon has the best of our building armor!

Why wouldn't the Pentagon, the headquarters of our nation’s Department of Defense, have the highest quality ”reactive” armor in order to best protect itself and its occupants? I don’t think any other country needed to see a plane smash into the Pentagon in order to think that it would be well protected.

The government is not releasing the full footage that shows the plane hitting the Pentagon because it is of National Security. It is of National Security because if the full footage was released and did not show a plane hitting the Pentagon then there would be hell to pay, and most likely an uprising from the U.S. citizens to overthrow the lying, corrupt government. The government is using the reason of “National Security” to hide the evidence and protect itself from us, the citizens. That isn't right and should not be allowed.

[edit on 27-3-2010 by tooo many pills]



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 




This is not a scientific explanation, it is your opinion, nothing more.


I never once said that it was a scientific explanation, that was your initial assumption. I was talking about the explosion as sort of a side note, to prop up my theory, which it does. It is just an observation from a scientific mind/professional.



Compare to the other videos, at the WTC. Do you propose that THEY also had "reactive armor"?


No, I don't propose they had reactive armor and the force of the explosion of the WTC had different properties. The damage also had different properties. It would be irrational to suggest that the Pentagon didn't have some type of reactive armor built in, especially in the newly renavated section. I kow for a fact that reactive armor is used on buildings as I have had experience with it before while I was in the military. I do not know for a fact that the Pentagon had reactive armor but logical reasoning would suggest that it does.



Do you really think that the entire wall facade of the Pentagon had such technology built in?


Well, yes I do think the entire wall facade had such technology, as that would be the purpose of the technology in the first place. You must not understand the use and implications of such technology, if you think that they would not be thorough in its application.



Furthermore, your scenario seems to completely ignore the internal structural damage to the Pentagon. Please take some time to research into the various sources that describe it.


Actually, my "scenario" seems to perfectly explain the internal damage of the Pentagon, both structural and nonstructural. In some close up photos, notice the untouched desks and objects that are directly next to the effected damaged spot. You can also notice, unbroken windows directly next to the affected spot. This is extremely indicative of some type of armor technology. My theory would also explain the lack of plane debris and the very small entry hole. Last but surely not least, I have been researching this since 2002, when I returned from Afghanistan. Maybe you should get a grasp of what I'm talking about before claiming that I am wrong?



In addition, it relies on the false allegation that videos were confiscated in order to "hide" something. Actually, all video was taken for examination by FBI and other agencies, and NOTHING of any significance was seen, except for the one you already posted.

Cameras simpley weren't pointed at that location. Oh, and "frames missing"?

Please source that. You did know, I hope, that the parking lot security video was NOT shooting at normal 30 frames-per-second, right?

It was about one or two fps, at most. It was intended to catch sight of people and ground vehicles, for which two fps is sufficient.

NOT an airplane at nearly 500 MPH.


First of all, your assumption relies strictly on the OS being right, nothing more. How do you know that nothing was found, did you view it? What class at Quantico did you graduate in? To be honest, you have no idea why they confiscated the video and neither do I. We can only theorize and while I offered up a theory, you have not.

Not all cameras were slow-speed cameras and to suggest otherwise, just proves ignorance. Also, nobody suggested that the cameras were operating at 30 fps as you imply. My original post was just pointing out that the frame of the actual impact is missing and therefore would not reveal any kind of reactive armor technology, thus being approved to declassify.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   
I keep seeing people post, "nice try" as if I'm trying to convince them that this is the reason that the government is suppressing this footage or that the government is right in suppressing this footage. That is not my intention at all. My intention is only to prove that the government would have a viable excuse to keep said footage secret.

If the goverment or debunkers can explain something away, whether it is true or not, we need to move on to something else, something that they can't explain away. I'm not arguing that this IS the reason that the government is suppressing this footage or even that they would be correct in doing, only that this could be argued as the reason. If this could be argued, then we don't have a case as it pertains to this issue.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Great concept. This video shows a similar technology that could have been used. However, pay attention to the amount of dust and particles that are ejected upwards and outward. It looks vastly different then the pentagon footage.



Also, I have always been bugged by something. The Pentagon has a camera pointed at every continent. Every city. Every government building. Every suspect. Every street corner. They have cameras EVERYPLACE. They see EVERYTHING.
But in 2001, they only had one camera pointed at their own building? Do they have LESS cameras on their own premises than a 7/11 does? At a 7/11 there's 2 cameras in a parking lot, one at the door. One at the back door, 4-5 in the store.

The pentagon has less surveillance than a 7/11?

BS

Pure BS.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


Common sense based explanation theory for sure...Nice!
S & F



I appreciate your opinion and respect it also. But I have my doubts as to the placement of such armor on a public building even though it is the Pentagon. The threat scenario concerns to the building do not warrant such placement of devices like that simply because the building is basically a really big occupied building that should anything trigger the armor to react would cause more damage than it would protect against. This was also a concern with it being used on tanks and other vehicles and that was overcome by the shape of the plates. But there was still a concern for the occupants nevertheless. Even within the threat scenarios planned for as to the protection considerations for the building, an aircraft or even a missile striking it would not be overcome or lessened to any substantial degree by the use of this type of protection.

Again, it is refreshing to read new ideas and opinions and I want you to realize that. Pay no attention to those here who may challenge your thoughts or opinion with rhetoric and contempt. Your welcome here and we are glad to have ya!



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


Could you supply us with pictures of these buildings with reactive armor built in?



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by The Baby Seal Club
 


removed

[edit on 3/27/2010 by mikelee]



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by The Baby Seal Club
 


Well, considering that you wouldn't be able to see reactive armor, I can supply many pictures of buildings but who knows if they have reactive armor or not. Reactive armor would be placed in between the frame and bricks or maybe even the wall and frame. It's often used on vehicles and one would only have to look at the M1-A1 Abrams Main Battle Tank to see something with reactive armor, though you still can't tell just by looking at it that it has this armor. Also, the reactive armor on buildings is probably far different than that on vehicles.

Reactive armor was a break-through, revolutionary technology in the field of armor and when it first came out, it was a heavily guarded secret. Now, many countries use the type that we initially put on our tanks. I could not see us advancing this technology, as we do with every other military technology to the point where it has morphed into something completely different that what we put on tanks, thus requiring the secrecy.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


Thank you for the welcome as it's much appreciated. I do see your point as far as safety goes, but that's only assuming that the technology would be the same as that on vehicles. Why would our reactive armor technology not be advanced along with every other defense technology? Assuming that it has advanced, we could be sure that it has become safer. There are many ways to make it safer as to not go off on accident. What if the reactive armor was not explosive, but some other technology that is much safer. What if it is gel based or anything really?



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join