Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Pentagon - No camera footage = No plane. A reasonable assumption.

page: 1
136
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+81 more 
posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 09:43 PM
link   
I have wondered since the morning of 911 why there were no immediate camera footage released to cite as evidence to back up the government's explanation that an airliner struck the Pentagon. Typically during an incident the government does provide some form of video or at least photographic proof of what it claims relating to that specific event/incident. In the case of the Pentagon, limited footage was released only after pressure placed on government and Pentagon officials by the press and the public. However what was released culminated in footage that shows nothing of an airliner as well as being proven to have been "frame spliced" or in layman terms, doctored. The question is not to argue as to why this is or was done, the question is why not release the entire collection of cameras to prove the governments position? Many speculate because there was no airliner at all and that another type of airborne device caused the explosion, death & destruction. One must assume reasonably that, the government does not wish for the public to know exactly what struck the building. Of course the public who believes every word the cowardly main stream media tells them and is led blindly into an unknown future will never know the reality of that incident on 911. In addition to being conditioned to not ask the tough questions that need asking and arguing the government's position on what caused the Pentagon destruction blindly and without an open mind.


source in photo

Above, what would prompt anyone (despite if they are FBI, NSA or whomever) to go around and pick up debris knowing full well that it is common knowledge that you do not pick up anything at a supposed crash site. Especially if you are law enforcement or any type if intelligence personnel, even the average citizen knows NOT to pick up such things. Amazingly but not surprisingly not one of the main stream media or pretty much anyone else has cited this. These two were never ID'd and why they are obviously picking up debris (or placing it) has never been looked into.

Donald Rumsfeld on September 10, 2001 at a press conference stated that the Pentagon could not account for 2 Trillion dollars, yes that is correct, 2 TRILLION dollars in transactions. earlier theorists noted this fact early in the months and following years after 911 but as usual the common skeptic lot denounced it. Now it is a verified and well known fact. And it plays to an interesting note that where the explosion at the Pentagon took place was the very locale of the accounting department that provided the records source to Rumsfeld regarding the lost funds. Coincidence? No one in his or her right mind would think so. Another little interesting note about this event of 911 is that Barbara Olsen's cell phone call to her husband Ted is now a confirmed fabrication and never happened at all. During the trail of Zacarias Moussaoui the FBI stated unequivocally that during their investigation into 911 and ZM being the 20th hijacker that they developed evidence that no phone call ever took place from Barbara Olsen to her husband. Bush's Solicitor General flat out lied to the FBI, the national press and the American people regarding his wife and that phone call. What shouldn't be forgotten is that the story of "hijackers with box cutters" as told to the media and the public was developed via this lie from Ted Olsen that Barbara told him thats what they were armed with. Now confirmed as a lie, it serves as circumstantial evidence that this lie was designed to establish the plot line for the 911 tale or at the very least the administration along with the 911 Report/Commission relied on nothing but lies and speculation to develop their story.

The Pentagon (and Flight 93) remain in my mind two of the puzzles that need to be solved in order to learn 911 truth and what really took place. Those two incidents occurred without the large witness and fore-thought given to the media outlets that had nearly instant ability to cover them right away. The cover of the Pennsylvania woods and countryside gave cover to what I firmly think was a hideous outcome unlike what we have been told happened. The Pentagon strike benefited from early morning commuters who were accustomed to seeing low flying aircraft very close to the Pentagon and would not necessarily give a second look to a speeding ?? painted up with similar company colors as depicted below.


Deepinfo

The size of the GH is seen below. Many think this is small drone but seeing this stock Air Force photo its true size can be determined. Could early morning commuters have been fooled by this? For many it is plausible.

wikimedia

And many also have seen the photo below showing debris flying from the still footage. The outline clearly and preciously matches the superimposition of the Global hawk's sections.

My own stock


Coincidence? What are the chances that a Global Hawk's sections would just magically match the parts/debris flying around in the government provided still frame? Pretty long odds if you ask me. But thats your call here.

Then we have the neat front lawn minutes after impact. Notice any "skid marks" like the OS states where the engines touched the ground? No we do not see that because it is now known that no such marks can or were ever found. Another lie like the Olsen phone calls.

AP

The photo above was taken before the collapse which was played to the hilt for maximum effect of the airliner tale. However as we all can see the impact hole is no bigger that a full sized pick up truck according to winesses. However none of them were called to testify. Wonder why? Also we do not see the engine skid marks as cited by government liars promoting the official fairy tale.


source noted in pic

Above is the confirmed entry point of ??? hit the Pentagon. No where big enough for an airliner but for a Global Hawk, it fits perfectly. This entry point was cited by the national media, FBI as where the airline entered the Pentagon. Unbelievable!

The WTC's as everyone can see in photos all over the internet had lots of blow back debris and fire yet the lawn in front of where the Pentagon was struck has hardly any. Now a steel girder building has much more free space ahead of the airliners to allow for escape than the Pentagon yet they still had tremendous blow back. Yet the Pentagon with it's several feet thick facade & columns allowed all of the debris forwardof the initial explosion? Makes no sense whatsoever. Plus it defies all known physic logic as well known forensic science where fast moving objects were impacted into buildings, ships, building during wartime. Same principle regardless if it's wartime or terrorism. Then we have the punch out hole where we have all been lied to by the government and their shills claiming the nose of the airliner did this. The nose section of airliners of the type purported to have hit the building is composed of light weight carbon and would survive this type of impact about the same as if the nose cone was made from a Coke can. Not to forget to mention that this was made after it slammed into the outer portion of the building then sliced & diced it's way thru the concrete & rebar support columns. Then it left an exit hole bigger than it was.


Say what you want or what makes you sleep best at night to the contrary but whatever did in fact hit the Pentagon was NOT an airliner and those who have said that it was, are liars. At least until proof is provided and even then it will be too little too late and must endure a harsh & very close scrutiny before we can definitively say that it either was indeed an airliner or, it was not. My money is not on the airliner story. Finally the words of Don Rumsfeld in a speech on 911.......


Rumsfeld: There were lots of warnings. The intelligence information that we get, it sometimes runs into the hundreds of alerts or pieces of intelligence a week. One looks at the worldwide, it's thousands. And the task is to sort through it and see what you can find. And as you find things, the law enforcement officials who have the responsibility to deal with that type of thing -- the FBI at the federal level, and although it is not, it's an investigative service as opposed to a police force, it's not a federal police force, as you know. But the state and local law enforcement officials have the responsibility for dealing with those kinds of issues. They [find a lot] and any number of terrorist efforts have been dissuaded, deterred or stopped by good intelligence gathering and good preventive work. It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it's physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them.
Source: DoD Archives/Speeches

After he said that, he also admitted Flight 93 was shot down. As I have always said and thought it was...



But, thats another thread!
edit on 12/25/2010 by mikelee because: source pic, add text & video




posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 10:14 PM
link   
I have seen where some have posted here on ATS and other forums that the photo used with the Global Hawk parts (my opinion) flying around was doctored or retouched. So I thought I'd post the government's frame they released to prove once & for all that it is from their own supplied 4 frames of footage.


edit on 12/25/2010 by mikelee because: add pic and spelling.



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


This is a well thought out thread. We will probably never know what really happened. Maybe we can hope for a change of heart for the better for one of the people in the know...


l



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 10:17 PM
link   
S+F OP Well put together thread!

If the government really wants us to believe the official story, they are going to have to release the Pentagon footage. It happened over 10 years ago so it's not like releasing the videos is going to hamper the "investigation". And it certainly isn't going to upset anybody, we see things blow up on TV/in movies all the time.



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 10:31 PM
link   
One of the most interesting aspects of the Pentagon fairy tale is that no one to this very day in a simulator (full sized or computer based w/joy stick) has been able to reproduce the final maneuver performed to align the airliner with the impact point. Of course the MSM will never report this. The airliner according to the flight data and the government's own admission was flying 151 knots above its maximum speed. That couldn't be done without a very steep dive which if you believe the OS...didn't happen. And it also couldn't be done within normal straight line flight.



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 10:31 PM
link   
edit on 12/25/2010 by mikelee because: Deleted by Mike Lee...Double post.



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


Thank you. The Pentagon & Flight 93 I think are the keys to 911.



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by thov420
 


Thank you.

10 years and no closer to learning what really happened, amazing. It must have been so evident that it was not an airliner they can't release the footage at any cost!



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 11:19 PM
link   
I have complied some analysis of 9/11 at www.kwakakev.com...

It goes into some of the evidence available in regards to the pentagon. The photo you first posted with some debris looks stages. I remember coming across one photo in which the debris would have had to go around a corner to land where it did. Also the debris near the point of impact is not consistent with what is expected if it was a plane.

To pull of something like this requires military involvement. As for how much and how far is hard to say but there are plenty of pieces of evidence still around. Just needs to time and resources to put it all together, the public will is there.



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 11:22 PM
link   
if the pentagon was hit by a missile, and proven, then the whole of 9/11 was a conspiracy, including the 2 planes that hit the twin towers.

they say to solve a conspiricy you look at who would benefit the most. that would be the democrats. if it was ever proven or evidence that the republicans were behind 9/11 that would mean the overthrow of the government and the end of the republican party. that would mean a dictatorship lead by the democratic party, no opposition and a majority senate to amend the constitution to their will in the name of freedom and democracy.

so it is possible that the republicans are actually trying to protect the republic by covering up all evidence of a conspiracy, knowing that they would be blamed and preventing a coup that would place the real planners of
9/11 in power: the democrats.

remember that during the democrats reign, osama bin laden was allowed to grow. but then again when it comes to bilderberg groups and tri-lateral commissions plans and agendas, they leave their republican and democrat membership cards at the door.

when they close the door at these meetings, their real puppet-master is present, the source of their power and the key to the mother of all conspiracies.

edit on 25-12-2010 by randomname because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 11:27 PM
link   
I don't think anyone, anywhere, truly believes the Pentagon was hit by a plane. It was always the largest flaw. If for no other reason then, well the plane was in Washington D.C and it chose the Pentagon over the White House? Dumbest terrorists ever.

If the O.S does start being seriously questioned by the worker bees, that will be it's undoing. Start from the most implausible and move backward.



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 11:37 PM
link   
Flight 93 was going to the White house which is why it was shot down. If you align a simple ruler on it''s path after it turned it aligns perfectly with the White house. Secret Service interrupted am VHF communications that day and told those pilots to "protect the house at all cost". Meaning the White House. Flight 93 was shot down without a doubt, they couldn't let the WH get hit regardless if the President was there or not.


+24 more 
posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 11:49 PM
link   
The fact they have 100s of video tapes and not a single one (with any clarity or depth) was ever released of a MUNDANE AIRPLANE CRASH ; seals the deal for me.

It's just a airplane crash. There is nothing secret about seeing a airplane crash. We all know what happens, boom it blows up.

So why are the videos secret? Well common sense tells us why...
Because they are hiding something!



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by randomname
 


It is good to see some analysis going on and you are right with 'where is the money?' approach. The USA political system has just become a façade to where a lot of the money and influence sit in the oligarchy.

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
Flight 93 was going to the White house which is why it was shot down. If you align a simple ruler on it''s path after it turned it aligns perfectly with the White house. Secret Service interrupted am VHF communications that day and told those pilots to "protect the house at all cost". Meaning the White House. Flight 93 was shot down without a doubt, they couldn't let the WH get hit regardless if the President was there or not.


So you were actually there to see the airplane get shot down with your own eyes?

You said without a doubt. That means you must have seen it happen first hand...

If you did not actually see it, and are going based off your assumptions, than I believe you should doubt your own analysis.



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


Which proves IMO that nothing should have been able to get into DC. I doubt we can hope for the truth to ever see the light of day. 10 years after the fact is a long time keep something as monumental as 911 steeped in such mystery, especially with the information and technology at our disposal.

It's disheartening to believe that no matter how close we get to the truth, even if that means the O.S is completely true, it won't matter. The damage is done, the die was cast and it's a new world, regardless of the truth.



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 11:55 PM
link   
Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence. So there COULD have been a real passenger airplane that crashed into the Pentagon that day.

But, the evidence is absent because the gov't refuses to release it.

So there must be a REASON why this evidence remains absent.

That is why many people suspect it may have been a UAV type object instead. Merely speculation based on absence of evidence.

But at the same time, the Govt could easily quell this speculation by merely releasing the reams of evidence they have locked up.

But the mere fact they refuse to release this information, further pushes many people into deeper speculation that the gov't was behind it.

It's a circular situation where things only get worse.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


I believe I have made it real clear that it is my opinion flight 93 was shot down. There is more circumstantial evidence to assert that then compared to relatively no evidence to prove conclusively that it was not shot down. Especially if your next post is gonna be the "OS says it crashed". I no longer get into the debates with type sin here looking to argue for the sake of an argument, thats a waste of my time and I no longer entertain such. BTW, the definition of circumstantial evidence is as follows:

Circumstantial Evidence is also known as indirect evidence. It is distinguished from direct evidence, which, if believed, proves the existence of a particular fact without any inference or presumption required. Circumstantial evidence relates to a series of facts other than the particular fact sought to be proved. The party offering circumstantial evidence argues that this series of facts, by reason and experience, is so closely associated with the fact to be proved that the fact to be proved may be inferred simply from the existence of the circumstantial evidence. The following examples illustrate the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence: If John testifies that he saw Tom raise a gun and fire it at Ann and that Ann then fell to the ground, John's testimony is direct evidence that Tom shot Ann. If the jury believes John's testimony, then it must conclude that Tom did in fact shoot Ann. If, however, John testifies that he saw Tom and Ann go into another room and that he heard Tom say to Ann that he was going to shoot her, heard a shot, and saw Tom leave the room with a smoking gun, then John's testimony is circumstantial evidence from which it can be inferred that Tom shot Ann. The jury must determine whether John's testimony is credible.

In other words the OS does not add up to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it is conclusive fact.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 12:03 AM
link   
No lol, I do indeed agree with you about your assessment.

I was merely putting you on your toes because you said "without a doubt", and I just want you to doubt yourself that's all.

I doubt myself all the time, it's good for working out that brain-muscle.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Arguing by speculation on an assumption that something may have or could happened is no different (or better) than believing the official story when those behind the OS provide inconclusive evidence or in the case of the Pentagon, a few frames of footage that really shows nothing at all. But the OS says its an airliner when none is present in the frames.
edit on 12/26/2010 by mikelee because: clarify









 
136
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join