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.

 

I wanted to make sure this is seen....

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2010 @ 05:06 AM
link   
Before I show you this, you must know that it isn't my work. I don't know if it has been shown before and I apologize if it has. I sit on the fence with this 911 thing. I don't trust my government but I don't trust Alex Jones or his 3 stooges either. So here is a video that may help someone...after all, we are in search of the truth and need both sides of the story right?



Again sorry if it has been shown. Viewed over 2 million times so it wouldn't surprise me. Very compelling video though, especially the pics.




posted on May, 7 2010 @ 05:57 AM
link   
If you look at the tail section at 2:20 to 2:40 in the video, you'll see that it doesn't match with the "plane".
It's a much better match to this:



from:

Originally posted by mikelee




Hmmmmm...


post by mikelee

[edit on 7-5-2010 by Dogdish]



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 07:25 AM
link   
This animation has been shown and discussed before in this forum, shortly after it was made public. I remember speculating at the time whether it or something like it could have been used to cook up the celebrated "five fake frames" of cam footage released by the Pentagon.

I think a lot of people would be surprised at what a treasure trove of info and discussion a lot of the old threads in the 9/11 forum are. Very few stones have been left unturned. Unfortunately I don't remember which thread dealt with the clip, but I'm guessing it had it's own thread.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Sheesh, are there still people who subscribe to this drivel? Even those damned fool conspiracy web sites making up all these 9/11 conspiracy claims to begin with are saying these "pentagon missile" stories are nonsense.

The "pentagon missile" claim is a hoax


If you're of a mind to twist and distort this into yet another secret gov't plot to murder us all, then why are you intentionally making it as convoluted sounding as possible with all these manufactured plane wreckage, hordes of disinformation agents, faked black box, and whatever? What can't you just say it really was flight 77 but it was under the forced remote control of the conspirators, or something? If they could fly a cruise missile by remote control into the Pentagon then they could certainly fly a passenger jet by remote control.

I'm not saying such a plot wouldn't be topping the "improbable" list too but at least it wouldn't require half of Washington D.C, to be in on it.

[edit on 7-5-2010 by GoodOlDave]



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Just sayin'... Look at the video, watch how the animation doesn't match the film.

Aren't we denying ignorance, here?


Edit: Anyway, no; I don't believe a jet would be as "nimble" as a cruise missile, at least for a job like this...

I think they remote controlled those into the towers, and they missed the mark a little bit. That's why the explosions don't match up as well as they should, and the tower tipped a bit before it fell into it's own footprint.



[edit on 7-5-2010 by Dogdish]



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ventian
 


Compelling , to say the least .

Replying with a post mainly so I have easy access to it without digging for it .



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dogdish

Just sayin'... Look at the video, watch how the animation doesn't match the film.

Aren't we denying ignorance, here?


Denying ignorance has nothign to do with it. It's someone with an agenda to introduce verifiably false information at the expence of research and of the facts that's the problem.

The animation specifically shows the plane flew right over a busy highway at low altitude, so it is an irrefutable fact that hordes of eyewitnesses specifically saw that it was a passenger jet that hit the Pentagon. The photos also irrefutably show that in one moment there was an empty lawn, and in the next moment, there was piles of United Airlines wreckage and debris was scattered all over the place. Whatever explanation you come up with it will necessarily need to be able to explain these facts, so if it can't then it's by definition an incorrect explanation.

If you want to be inventing these conspiracies, that's one thing, but that doesn't give you license to rewrite the facts to your liking.


Edit: Anyway, no; I don't believe a jet would be as "nimble" as a cruise missile, at least for a job like this...


Now you're contradicting yourself. You're claiming that the gov't is so omnipotent that it can invent high tech explosives noone has ever seen before and plant them in an occupied building without anyone noticing, and yet they're such bumbling ameteurs that they a decent pilot that can steer a remote controlled passenger jet into the Pentagon? You seem to be pickign and choosing improbabilities to suit your agenda.

Why can't it simply be the case that you're not famiiar with how the Pentagon was built so you'd naturally have no idea what to expect to see as realistic damage? I admit I'm not familiar with how the Pentagon was built so I admit I wouldn't know what to look for.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Is this the best video that we can find of the Pentagon being hit , or does anyone know if there is one with better quality and resolution ?

This is a serious inquiry .



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 


Unfortunately, even though the pentagon is (supposedly) under tight surveillance there aren't too many vids out there. I have searched and searched. The web is so bogged down by the conspiracy videos that I may have missed something though. This is a serious reply.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 02:55 PM
link   
I agree that the eyewitnesses prove the missile theory false. No witnesses reported seeing a missile.

But unfortunately for all of us the eyewitnesses also prove the plane was far from the light poles and flew away after the explosion.



Plus if you still believe the cab driver's story after seeing that video I'd bet that an admission of guilt by Bush & Cheney wouldn't even convince you.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   
But I will say that the animation presented in this thread has served a great purpose by showing everyone where the plane HAD to be in order to cause the physical damage. Too bad this is opposite what so many witnesses who were in the best positions to tell reported.

What's bad about this animation is that it fails to depict the actual physics involved with a 757 performing this feat by removing the topography, and ignoring the officially reported speed 533mph.

Here are some much more accurate animations created by an actual pilot who took all of these important factors into consideration:


Google Video Link



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Plus it's interesting how the creator of this animation suggests the alleged smoke trail seen in the Pentagon security video was caused by a light pole.



However, while everything else in the video casts a shadow this strange looking squiggly "smoke trail" does not. Neither does the "plane".




Furthermore I have not been able to find a single eyewitness report of this rather thick looking smoke trail. Has anyone else?



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
Is this the best video that we can find of the Pentagon being hit , or does anyone know if there is one with better quality and resolution ?

This is a serious inquiry .


yes there are other videos that captured the event
unfortunately, you might not ever see them.

start here



Not only has the government refused to release footage that would clearly show how the Pentagon was attacked, it has also seized footage not belonging to the military. The FBI confiscated video recordings from several private businesses near the Pentagon in the immediate aftermath of the attack. Those recordings, if they still exist, might provide decisive evidence about the attack.

The FBI visited a hotel near the Pentagon to confiscate film from a security camera which some hotel employees had been watching in horror shortly after the attack. The FBI denied that the footage captured the attack. 1
The FBI visited the Citgo gas station southwest of the Pentagon within minutes of the attack to confiscate film that may have captured the attack. According to Jose Velasquez, who was working at the gas station at the time of the attack, the station's security cameras would have captured the attack


the fbi seized the security tapes at a local gas station shortly after which had a near perfect view of the event supposedly... most people know about this

they also seized security camera footage from other places as well that also got footage of the whole event, as well as civilian reports of the fbi seizing cameras and personal tapes that managed to get footage of the event




The Sheraton National Hotel may be the hotel from which the FBI seized a CCTV recording.


if the government Really wanted to prove that 9 11 was NOT an inside job, or to prove that a plane DID hit the pentagon, a good and sure bet that is within their power is to just release the seized footaged! (so long as they did not 'delete' all the seized footage of the event, which actually would be 'convenient' if it WAS an inside job)

they have stated before that some of the seized footage will not be released as a 'matter of securiy'.... well some 'good evidence' must be on those tapes if that is the case



[edit on 5/7/2010 by indigothefish]



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 04:17 PM
link   
They eventually quietly released the gas station video in 2006 but they edited out the view of the Pentagon and the plane.



Here's a good thread about the security videos:

Details Regarding the Confiscated Security Videos Of Pentagon Attack



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by FalseFlagBurner
 


wow i had no idea the gas station footage was finally released, i can see some of it is edited, i'm having a hard time seeing what's going on in the footage as well



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by indigothefish
 


Yeah it doesn't show anything.

You can't really tell that it's edited but if you read that thread I linked about the security video, specifically this post, you can see how the manager of the gas station reported how an entire camera was removed a few days after the event.

That particular camera view is not in the video they released proving they had to have manipulated it out because the manager said it was installed and working on 9/11 and that it had a view of the alleged impact point. More on this here.

There is obviously a cover up going on here.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Here's an interesting site, looks like there may be an agenda, or maybe a cohesive theory, depending on your point of view:
9-11 Review

I personally think there is a good reason to blow up that particular area of the Pentagon:
Here is one possibility
Here is another

My reasoning in this belief comes from the confiscation and destruction of evidence, which is a crime in itself.
The evidence



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by FalseFlagBurner
 


"However, while everything else in the video casts a shadow this strange looking squiggly "smoke trail" does not. Neither does the "plane"."

Interesting point, and brought up HERE. (9-11Research.wtc.net)

Quote: (underlining mine)

The Drone and Missile Attack Theory

Shortly after the publication of Meyssan's book, five frames from a Pentagon camera were released. The video frames, which appear to show a small aircraft and a missile exhaust plume, prompted a new round of speculation on the Internet about what really hit the Pentagon. New theories consistent with the video footage replaced the truck bomb theory. Meyssan later released a second book, Le Pentagate, to explain his new theory that a drone and missile hit the Pentagon. The refusal of officials to release complete footage from this camera or any footage from any other cameras reinforced the idea that the five frames were genuine. Perhaps because the footage contradicted the official story, few skeptics examined the possibility that the frames were fabricated.

What did the five frames show?

[edit on 7-5-2010 by Dogdish]



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Perhaps because the footage contradicted the official story, few skeptics examined the possibility that the frames were fabricated.


I don't know what he's talking about.

I think MANY skeptics have examined that possibility. Plus it's 100% clear and evident by the animation in this thread that this security video was heavily used to sell the official story of a 757 impact.

Here is a great analysis demonstrating the security video manipulated because the two different views get out of synch:




posted on May, 7 2010 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by FalseFlagBurner
 


AWESOME Vid.
Thanks for showing that!

BTW, here's the theory from that site's link:



Motive for Fabrication

This evidence that the video frames were manipulated, though not conclusive, further discredits the idea that the release of these images was just a miscalculation on the part of people involved in the cover-up. The source of these images must have known that they show a vapor trail, an obscured aircraft that is clearly not a 757, and an explosion that could not have resulted from jet fuel combustion alone. It is unreasonable to think that this set of five frames is anything other than a planned part of the cover-up. They fueled theories that the Pentagon crash involved a small plane and a missile, rather than a jetliner such as Flight 77. The perpetrators have correctly predicted that controversy between people rejecting and insisting that Flight 77 crashed at the Pentagon would divide skeptics.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join