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.

 

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

page: 10
136
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by fleabit
 





There were many very reliable eyewitness accounts that saw a passenger jet fly into the Pentagon. Why they are continually disregarded baffles me. Like that "effort" to interview all of them that concluded they were all wrong - they interviewed less than 1/4th, and for those who gave a very precise eyewitness testimony, they were dismissed for various ridiculous reasons. They CONCLUDED the eyewitnesses were ALL wrong, even though they were not able to interview all who saw it. How's that for thoroughness!


The problem is called "Confirmation Bias".

From Wikipedia:

Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true.[Note 1][1] As a result, people gather evidence and recall information from memory selectively, and interpret it in a biased way. The biases appear in particular for emotionally significant issues and for established beliefs.


The mechanism here is that people are starting from a belief that the Government lies to the people all the time about everything. It is one big all encompassing conspiracy and that is where Confirmation Bias starts acting. They filter out anything information that belies that fundamental belief and embrace anything that seems to endorse it.

From that starting point comes all:


  • The Government lies all the time about everything
  • The Government conspires to mislead the people for its own nefarious purposes about every subject all the time.
  • Therefore the Government is lying about 9/11
  • Therefore the Government is lying about what happened at the Pentagon
  • Therefore the there wasn't a passenger plane


Confirmation bias will not allow any evidence that denies the veracity of any of the above. The problem becomes one of working out the Government faked it.

To do so they have to look at 90 foot holes in the wall and see only a ten foot hole. They have to look at a debris strewn field and see no debris. They have to look at investigators collection evidence and see conspirators planting evidence. They have to listen to and read about eye witnesses, office worker survivors and believe that they have all been bribed and will remain bribed forever. They have to read the list of dead passengers and office worker victims and and believe they have all been moved to secret bases in Antarctica and their families are have all either been bribed (and will stay bribed forever) or simply cut off from their loved ones in Antarctica.

They have to account for the damage by inventing scenarios where disguised planes a fraction the size the 757 are used, which requires the bribery to extend to the eyewitnesses that have to stay bribed for life. They have to explain what happened to the real 757 if it didn't crash into the Pentagon by claiming it was dumped in the ocean. They have to explain that the reason they couldn't use the real 757 to crash it into the Pentagon, though they were going to have make it disappear anyway, was that a real 757 crash wouldn't look like a real 757 crash so they had to use a much smaller plane. They even have to invent new laws of physics.

On and on and on. It doesn't matter what piece of speculation is debunked, confirmation bias will deny the debunking and will probably turn the evidence around to exactly the opposite. If somebody decides to claim that the reason nobody saw the 'flyover' was because the plane was the same color as the clouds and it got lost, and you point out to them that every photo and contemporary weather report shows clear blue skies, they will claim that they have been doctored, every one, down to the last tourist happy snap at the Washington Monument.
edit on 26/12/2010 by rnaa because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 07:13 PM
link   
The media is always eager to show any photos or video taken of any disaster scene footage. About the only time available footage would not be shown to the public is in the case of military operations. There is much speculation that is what this is.

It is impossible all the theories about the 911 events could be correct, and even the most dyed-in-the-wool Trusters will admit the true facts of those events deviate from the OS to some degree. There are bound to forever be mysteries surrounding these events and the true story will never be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt.

We do know the events of 911 served some agendas whether opportunistically or by design. Two wars were initiated as a result, helped along with additional fact-fudging, and American citizens lost many expectations for privacies they held prior to 911. TPTB also made many gains in the aftermath along with huge sums of national treasury vanishing without a trace.

It was not only foreign terrorists' agenda carried out by 911 but also served domestic opportunists and profiteers who will keep getting a "pass" until proof comes to the surface that there were shady dealings propogated by internal bodies that day. The Pentagon videos, please.
edit on 26-12-2010 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 07:18 PM
link   
This is a perfect example of imaginations run amok that prevent me from from voicing my beliefs in anything abnormal/conspiriatorial so that I am not associated with them.
Were videosfrom neighboring buildings confiscated? Absolutely. Why were they not released? Its not in the interest of investigators to disprove the outrageous claims by loons. Its not their job.
I know someone directly who was on the road and saw the airliner fly low and slam into the building. They arent a dis-info agent by any means. Those people on that flight died that day slamming into the pentagon and there is no denying/accounting for them otherwise.

Crackpots....



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by talisman
 


if it was an inside job can you tell me why the people who planned it would risk being caught by 1 photo or video by a member of the public?

1 photo or video of their ufo/uav/cruise missile and the games up. All that work and 1 photo could get you caught? doesnt make sense. But none of the "no-planer" stuff does

carry on



Because it was beautifully executed.

Risk of being caught? We can have an elephant standing right next to us and if the media tells us over and over and over again there is no elephant then, people like you believe it.
The problem is, many of us are getting too wise to their tricks. They tried this with JFK and now, let's say many of us our seasoned ex-fools.

And no one is saying 'no plane' (as in hologram).
Oh...there was a plane alright. And it most likely launched that missile right into Rumsfeld's invoices before it flew away above the Pentagon that, many people claim to have seen!!!
Now remember, all planes were halted at that hour.





.....and there, might be the answer!!!!!!



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by talisman
 


if it was an inside job can you tell me why the people who planned it would risk being caught by 1 photo or video by a member of the public?

1 photo or video of their ufo/uav/cruise missile and the games up. All that work and 1 photo could get you caught? doesnt make sense. But none of the "no-planer" stuff does

carry on




They could easily call anything 'fake' as to not worry about 'getting caught.' The real issue here at hand is the visual record of what happened. It is not reasonable to believe that the Military has no visual record of the incident. It simply is not believable to assume that the Pentagon had cameras only up to the task of catching a front door robbery!

Whatever happened, and I am not saying it was 'this or that', but whatever happened, is being hidden from us.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by OuttaTime

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood

Do you believe that high level people actually sat around a table and planned this beforehand?

That they would hit the Pentagon with a crusie missile, and then simply pass it off as a plane, after having presumably done something with the real plane and its passengers.


Give me a scenario that seems believable to you and the rationale behind it.


Ummmmm... yes. And to give a proper rationale from their perspective is monotonous since they cannot keep their own info straight. A scenario could be... A cruise missile was launched, NORAD was distracted by a drill to protect against what actually DID happen. The cruise missile DID hit the pentagon and penetrate 6 reinforcecd concrete walls 2 feet thick, and ironically ALL personnel were called away from that area of the pentagon hence, no bodies IN the pentagon, and no bodies of passengers found through 3 ring sections. After the impact, secret service, FBI, and high level civilians appear at the site and immediately gather the 'aircraft' debris and place it all in a box the size of a refrigerator and drive off. Dirt is brought in and dumped in the immediate area surrounding the impact site to bury forensic evidence (and the lack of skidmarks before impact). At the same time, agents are dispatched throughout the area to confiscate all video footage of the impact, and publish claims that a 160' wide object made a 12 foot hole, and melted all 180+ passengers. Then I would 'find the black box' and refuse to publish the contents of it, IF the crash did not vaporize everything on impact. Then I would do whatever is needed to collapse the impact site to hide the fact that the engines did not rupture the walls in the perimeters of the wall and the wings were not found. The engines were the hardest and heaviest parts of the plane, yet there were no signs of damage where the engines would have hit, nor were 2 engines identified or recovered. Only 1 engine, and it was too small to be a Boeing 757 engine, yet it was found inside the building and not outside in the location of 20' from the center of impact.

How's that for a scenario?


Well at least it is an effort I suppose .......................except that there were bodies found, there was plenty of debris, including engines (correctly identified), there was a line of impact damage from the wings, the hole was 90 ft wide at ground level - and don't you think that 160 ft is a tad wide for an airplane body?



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Teabags
Those people on that flight died that day slamming into the pentagon and there is no denying/accounting for them otherwise.

Crackpots....



Really? Prove it? Seeing you say our government doesn't have to prove anything to us 'crackpots' then, you do it.

At no time, no where, has a plane accident vaporized the entire plane and incinerated all the passengers/crew to dust!!!! Never!!!!!!
This crash into the Pentagon wasn't anything spectacular as far as a typical plane-meets-building accident.

So once again.....more coincidences.

We don't know of any body on that plane because there were no bodies recovered. Oh? You say go to the Passenger List? I can't trust a manifest that failed to include those 4 hijackers so why would I think any of it was real? Call me cynical!

Now once again.....the TAPES.
They release 5 frames of a fireball and you sleep well at night thinking the government is protecting you. Well, good for you I s'pose.

I just can't understand the diametric effect this event played on us. We are truly a country divided.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood

Well at least it is an effort I suppose .......................except that there were bodies found, there was plenty of debris, including engines (correctly identified), there was a line of impact damage from the wings, the hole was 90 ft wide at ground level - and don't you think that 160 ft is a tad wide for an airplane body?



OK, JohhnyB let's go with your premise here, now with that in mind.

Where is all of the footage from the multiple camera angles inside and out of the Pentagons 35 acre, 6 million square foot facility?

And with a Trillion dollar yearly budget, top secret facility, I would wager they have 1000's of state of the art cameras. I bet all of the inside and outside cameras were still running, before, during and after the attack.

If your going to lay the cards on the table, and show evidence........

.......Then lay all the cards, on the table, and not just half of the deck.


What do we have?

One angle.

edit on 26-12-2010 by Realtruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Teabags
This is a perfect example of imaginations run amok that prevent me from from voicing my beliefs in anything abnormal/conspiriatorial so that I am not associated with them.
Were videosfrom neighboring buildings confiscated? Absolutely. Why were they not released? Its not in the interest of investigators to disprove the outrageous claims by loons. Its not their job.
I know someone directly who was on the road and saw the airliner fly low and slam into the building. They arent a dis-info agent by any means. Those people on that flight died that day slamming into the pentagon and there is no denying/accounting for them otherwise.

Crackpots....


Would you do me a HUGE favor? Really. Would you?

Let's pretend 9-11 never happened.
You with me?

Okay.
Let's say.....er, this were a test. An IQ test at that.
And let's say the examiner, Human_Alien presented you with this:



Now, I know what your answer should be and if you're honest, you too will come up with the 'right' answer so now the question is....what is that?

Are you going to tell me (whose determining your IQ) that that was a Boeing 757 (and an American Airline one at that)?

Really? Now be honest and no cheating. Keep your eyes on your own paper and please answer my question.
Thanks



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Realtruth

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood

Well at least it is an effort I suppose .......................except that there were bodies found, there was plenty of debris, including engines (correctly identified), there was a line of impact damage from the wings, the hole was 90 ft wide at ground level - and don't you think that 160 ft is a tad wide for an airplane body?



OK, JohhnyB let's go with your premise here, now with that in mind.

Where is all of the footage from the multiple camera angles inside and out of the Pentagons 35 acre, 6 million square foot facility?

And with a Trillion dollar yearly budget, top secret facility, I would wager they have 1000's of state of the art cameras. I will get all of the inside and outside cameras were still running, before, during and after the attack.

If your going to lay the cards on the table, and show evidence........

.......Then lay all the cards, on the table, and not just half of the deck.

edit on 26-12-2010 by Realtruth because: (no reason given)


Because CCTV cameras are not positioned to monitor the sky for Kamikazi airplanes they tend to be pointed at the ground, monitoring doorways, carparks and the like - they dont have a very high refresh rate and they don't capture 500 mph planes flashing through thier field of view in a faraction of a second very well.

How about we go with your belief that there was only a 12 ft hole - the evidence that it was 90ft+ has been around for ten yrs www.911review.com...



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by JohhnyBGood
 


You mean THIS 90' hole?



It may have been 90' wide after it collapsed in, but this image doesn't show a gaping hole. The plane itself has a wingspan of just over 155' according to this link. . And this is, from what the media has shown so far, the largest piece of debris
. You can check out this link if it makes any sense.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 07:57 PM
link   
The burden of proof is not on the Truther's, but the people trying to convince us that there was a plane that crashed into the Pentagon. Whole story, not just a section.

Analogy:

The story about Red Riding Hood.

Once upon a time there was a little girl named red riding hood, and the big bad wolf ate her grandma, the end.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


The American Airlines plane spiraled down into the Pentagon which leads me to believe that an American Airlines pilot controlled the descent, and then abruptly hit the Pentagon broadside rather than go into the White House as originally intended.

The Pentagon probably wisely will not release photos to protect its own interest. Think what you will. An American Airliner did impact the Pentagon. It was not United Flight 93 however.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood

Because CCTV cameras are not positioned to monitor the sky for Kamikazi airplanes they tend to be pointed at the ground, monitoring doorways, carparks and the like - they dont have a very high refresh rate and they don't capture 500 mph planes flashing through thier field of view in a faraction of a second very well.




Ok,

Again we go with your premise here.

Where and let's just say the camera's didn't have the refresh rate. So what, leave the refresh rate out of it.

Where is all the other camera angles footage from before, during and after the attack?

One angle shot? Even the most logical mind would ask this question.

A major attack happened and they show one angle??????

Analogy again here folks:

Go to a movie and they show you a two minute clip, The End.....Where's the rest of the story?
edit on 26-12-2010 by Realtruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 08:06 PM
link   





Now, I know what your answer should be and if you're honest, you too will come up with the 'right' answer so now the question is....what is that?

Are you going to tell me (whose determining your IQ) that that was a Boeing 757 (and an American Airline one at that)?

Really? Now be honest and no cheating. Keep your eyes on your own paper and please answer my question.
Thanks


Why - that looks just like a fuel/air explosion of the fuel tanks in the wings of a large airplane, captured by a CCTV camera with a low refresh rate.

A cruise missile would I expect have penetrated into the building and then exploded, causing a lot more damage, with debris being blown back away from the impact site - and of course leaving explosive residue over everything.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood


Because CCTV cameras are not positioned to monitor the sky for Kamikazi airplanes they tend to be pointed at the ground, monitoring doorways, carparks and the like -


Do you just make stuff up? Where'd you get that information from?

Okay, I'll play along. Let's say they DON'T have camera's aiming for Kamikaze planes and neither does Dulles Airport (eye roll) but Flight 77 was almost on her-belly for the last 500-900 feet of her life. Remember? It crawled on her belly like a reptile so surely they could've gotten that image because that was waist-high!!!

Then how 'bout those fancy satellites that can apparently read my license plate?

Nothin'? Just those 5 frames eh?
Well maybe it's a good thing this terrible event happened because we surely needed to amp up and improve our surveillance capabilities!



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by JohhnyBGood
 


Thanks for pointing out the One Angle there JohhnyB, One angle.

Where is the rest of the cameras and story?

This is what this entire thread is about.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by JohhnyBGood
 


Now you're not playing the game correctly. I said pretend we didn't know anything about 9-11. Then I asked, what does that footage show?

Anyone, even a 3 year old, would scratch their little head and say "I don't know. An explosion?"

It shows nothing discernible yet THAT.......was the evidence provided to a nation that was scared to death that morning and...ever since!!

It's not only insulting, it's infuriating.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by LiteraryOneTwo
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


The American Airlines plane spiraled down into the Pentagon which leads me to believe that an American Airlines pilot controlled the descent, and then abruptly hit the Pentagon broadside rather than go into the White House as originally intended.

The Pentagon probably wisely will not release photos to protect its own interest. Think what you will. An American Airliner did impact the Pentagon. It was not United Flight 93 however.


No. It was Flight 77 but whose keeping score


Would you expound on your theory please. It sounds intriguing.

Thanks



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by OuttaTime
reply to post by JohhnyBGood
 


You mean THIS 90' hole?



It may have been 90' wide after it collapsed in, but this image doesn't show a gaping hole. The plane itself has a wingspan of just over 155' according to this link. . And this is, from what the media has shown so far, the largest piece of debris
. You can check out this link if it makes any sense.



You don't think this pre-collapse photo, with a 96ft hole counts then!?

www.911review.com...



new topics

top topics



 
136
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join