It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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 = ?)
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).
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
I always appreciate the views of members who just want the truth, no labels!
Welcome to ATS 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.