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: 17
136
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Krycheck
It still amazes me how much some people work to keep floating this theory..

I worked for a major computer company and I had a call at a building right across the morning the pentagon was hit.

I was leaving that building and .ed to get on 395 to go into DC for another repair call when I saw THE PLANE come down and hit the pentagon.

Not a missle , not a drone, it was also not the Arch Angel Michael nor a bunch of of Screaming MIMI's it was A PLANE!!



sorry buddy but if you were anywhere else on earth that morning I'm sure you'd have a hard time with it all too




posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Krycheck
 


You are the FIRST person I have seen on this site say that. If what you say is true then my apologies for anything I may have said that offends anyone, anywhere. But, until I see some sort of film evidence of a 747 impacting the pentagon, because the visual evidence doesn't support that story, then I'm inclined to think you're either mistaken, or stupid.If what you say is true then there must be some more people you know who can testify as to your veracity. I don't think that's asking too much, considering the stakes?



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by dillweed
 


I'll try and see if I can get one of the other techs I worked with at the time to respond. We haven't been in touch in almost 5 years but he was actually spared from that mess at the pentagon.

We both ran calls there and it was his turn to go over there that day.The area that was hit by the plane was where we usually went to do the repairs for the IT dept. there.

I can remember he was pissed because he got called off on the way over there to run an emergency printer call at a bank nearby. If it wasn't for that he would have been in the area the plane would of hit. It's been about 5 years since I heard from him but I couldn't think of anyone better to do it.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


Nice try, but the forensic profile is done hours after the impact and after the roof collapsed. One of the photos shows the perimeter yard already covered with dirt and gravel and a crane on premises. I am more concerned with the hole/damage done within 5 minutes of the impact. Whatever impacted the building was obviously powered by ramjet/turbojet propulsion which would explain the F/A explosion and the tell-tale fingerprint of collateral damage and concussion damage. If you check the photos of the impact areas of the towers, you will find windows gone, beams destroyed, and the fireball envelope. In the pentagon, the glass is still in the windows in the areas believed to be impacted by the 757 wings. The wings would have been sheared and in relatively good condition. In the top photo the only large debris (bigger than the car that shouldn't be there) is a couple pieces of corrugated tin, and the fencepoles would have been bent/broken/gone. The largest piece of debris found was no bigger than a car door. This is what a typical plane crash debris field looks like:



What strikes me as completely mundane is their huge impatience to remove/cover all the evidence ASAP (done at all 3 crash sites). If there was a direct correlation with 'terrorist groups' all debris would be scrutinized in order to form a solid case in court. Their methods however, do not mesh with correct forensic protocol. The flight 93 wreckage was no passenger plane either. I just find it hard to believe that these planes vaporized leaving only a box full of structural debris.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by OuttaTime
 


Reading through the last....four+ pages, and I can only shake my . in utter amazement, anymore.

The OP?? mikelee is either lying through his teeth, in the post about the engine debris found (the post with the missing photo...it's got the red "X" in the corner, when I look at it) or truly has NOT taken time to logically, and rationally review ALL of the evidence. The knee-jerk "starring" seen on even the most ludicrous posts.....those being the inane ones that are going along with this idiocy of a "Global Hawk", and the most incredible "no plane" baloney. Utterly astonishing, there is simply no level of comprehension exhibited.

(BTW...responding to someone else, here...but about the mikelee post? You know, the lie about the size of the engine component debris, with the cute picture of two dudes sitting in the B-757 engine nacelle intake? Which one is you, mike? And, for others who may not have seen it before, that SAME picture was posted by same member, in another thread, with the same (FALSE) assertion of size comparisons.....and commented on already. You would think that mikelee would have more decency than to repeat, again....after being told already that he is wrong.....?)

Seems in the drive to perpetually muddy the waters, and poison the well, the so-called "truth movement" must resort to falsehoods, and manipulations, in order to keep this crap coming....and the sputum flowing.....

____
Now, @ OuttaTime (BTTF reference??) ---


The wings would have been sheared and in relatively good condition.


Just above, I alluded to the appalling lack of reality, and used the word "ludicrous". The sentence I just quoted (and not to be offensive directly to the "Back to the Future" fan), but to make such a pronouncement, (IF with a seriously straight face), indicates a complete lapse of understanding of the physics involved, and the materials reactions to the forces that were present on impact.

Is it possible that people truly, truly do NOT comprehend what occurs in a VERY high velocity impact? Well, maybe....when you see this next comparison:


This is what a typical plane crash debris field looks like...


And, was followed by an external link to a crash scene....looked like one I recall, a Libyan Airlines jet(??). Could be a different case....in any event, what is astonishing to me is how people will use something like THAT as a comparison example!! It has NO similarity, whatsoever, to the sort of damage and resulting debris distribution from the +480 knot impact of American 77 at the Pentagon!!

What people keep throwing up as "comparisons" are images of LANDING type accidents, usually. Folks, airplanes to NOT land at 480 knots, in normal operations! A typical such crash, occurring at around 150-170 knots....and the sequence of destruction is different, as energy is dissipated, usually long the ground. Stuff breaks off in chunks, and momentum slows gradually...BUT, EVERY crash sequence will be unique, in its way...they are all different.

You have to look for the ones that are at least on a par with those of 9/11....and there just AREN'T that many....none that were results of impacts, in controlled manner, at speeds that were over 450 knots, into building structures. Not in HISTORY had that occurred. We can, instead, turn to a handful that showed the results of the HIGH speed impacts with other surfaces.....the ground, or the water. And, have no illusion, striking the water is equivalent, from the forces and physics standpoint, as striking solid objects like concrete.

I certainly hope that old YouTube video of the Phantom jet hitting the concrete wall doesn't need to be rolled out again?? (Hint for OT: The wings don't fare so well.....).

One example that comes to mind (why I mentioned water impacts) is SwissAir 111. By the time it hit the ocean surface it was out of control (due to inflight fire, in "attic" area of fuselage, above First Class section, and near cockpit). Electrical system interruptions meant that the Flight Recorder failed while still airborne, but it undoubtedly hit at HIGH speed...read the linked article, and look at pictures of the recovered debris:


The 'large' pieces of metal frame and skin were usually no bigger than 25 x 15 cm (10 x 6 in), with the majority being much smaller. Only a very few were larger.


www.forensic-physical-evidence-consulting.ca...
______


Did I put these images up, yet? If so, they still bear repeating:





Seems odd, that I have to state what are (to me, and other aviation professionals) some rather obvious facts about airplanes, and their construction....BUT, realizing that many people just look at the exterior of the airplane, and I guess assume it's some solid block of metal?? The images are the best can do here, but a poor substitute for actually seeing in person, how an airplane is build, out of the separate components, and just how insubstantial they are, especially at the extremities. A lot of empty space, inside the airframe itself.
(BTW, this is true of the engines' separate components too):




In the overall airplane "skeleton" drawings you can see, also (I hope) how the majority of the densest masses, and sub-assemblies, are clustered near the center. In the areas spanning laterally from engine-to-engine, the real "meat" of the overall strength is there....to support those engines, and also the Main Landing Gear. Think about it logically....when the airplane is parked on the ground? WHERE is most of the weight concentrated?? Those Main Gear struts support the lion's share. And have to be sturdy enough, not only to support the static weights, but vertical landing IMPACT forces that may occur, in the airplane's service lifetime. Further, strengths are designed for vertical (G-forces...both positive and negative) situations....horizontal forces on the airframe are far less substantial, in flight normal regimes. The force of the oncoming air, as you fly through it, is not nearly as "powerful" as you seem to think.

(If it helps, think of your car. Well, not your car....a race-car....at 200 MPH. That is the same as a wind of 200 MPH hitting it, if the car were standing still, correct?? Does that wind damage the bumper? Break the .lights? Anything at all? Nope. Now, slam your race-car into a brick wall at 200 MPH. Think anything will break??? Slam an exact duplicate car at about 1/4 that speed, to compare to the difference for a landing airplane speed, and the HIGH speed of 9/11 crashes. Which event will have the largest parts of the car left over?? And do the least damage??).


As I said, can't believe this actually has to be explained, would think it's rather obvious.......




edit on 27 December 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 11:10 AM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I certainly do believe what you say concerning the mechanization's of a crash and the physical makeup of a plane but to me something just doesn't look right or feel right about the whole pentagon crash thing.

And all questions would be answered if the confiscated tapes were released. Transparency and not hiding information is the way to resolve this conspiracy.

until then ..........


Just to add...your arrogant condescending tone isn't winning any converts!


edit on 27-12-2010 by whaaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Very interseting info.
I will play devils advocate and say the reason the videos were/are not being released is because it is standard procedure and those that have them know a plane hit and there have been numerous eye witnesses that have stated a plane hit, so they feel they do not have to prove it.
Here is a link to witnesses. Sorry if it has been posted, but we must accept or deny those that say they saw something.

whatreallyhappened.com...



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by sensible thought
 
I fear this discussion is being legitimized by the last few comments. We are still throwing hearsay around as though it's fact, and it's not. If there are pictures/films then they should be released. Because they haven't the only thing left for me to believe is, they don't exist.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by Krycheck
 


You are the FIRST person I have seen on this site say that. If what you say is true then my apologies for anything I may have said that offends anyone, anywhere. But, until I see some sort of film evidence of a 747 impacting the pentagon, because the visual evidence doesn't support that story, then I'm inclined to think you're either mistaken, or stupid.If what you say is true then there must be some more people you know who can testify as to your veracity. I don't think that's asking too much, considering the stakes?


So in other words, you are going to believe what you want to believe despite all the evidence that shows it's false, and the only way you'll give up the theories you want to believe is if someone produces evidence that might not even exist. How convenient that turns out for you.

Even if the footage did exist and it was shown to you, if you trusters are so zealously loyal to your conspiracy claims as you admit, there's no way you would believe it. You'd simply make up more claims why you shouldn't accept it just like you're making up claims why you shouldn't believe any of the other evidence of eyewitnesses, photographs of wreckage, black box examinations, or whatever. I know full well you'd do that becuase the "moon landing is a hoax" people are insisting all the NASA film footage was faked on some secret gov't sound system, so why would you be any different?

It's one thing to be interested in the facts of 9/11, but it's another thing entirely to cling to a particular idea and then force everything else to conform with the idea. It's the difference between Galileo and the Catholic church.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by OuttaTime
reply to post by rnaa
 


What strikes me as completely mundane is their huge impatience to remove/cover all the evidence ASAP (done at all 3 crash sites). If there was a direct correlation with 'terrorist groups' all debris would be scrutinized in order to form a solid case in court. Their methods however, do not mesh with correct forensic protocol. The flight 93 wreckage was no passenger plane either. I just find it hard to believe that these planes vaporized leaving only a box full of structural debris.


How do you know the flight 93 wreckage wasn't from a passenger plane. Were you there?



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Isnt all this old news,especially to a.t.s. Anyway still agree with you.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Your presentation makes sense. But I have one question. If you can answer in a logical way then I could put this baby to rest: WHERE ARE THE VIDEOS OF THE PENTAGON CRASH. WYH ARE THEY CLASSIFIED?



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllIsOne
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Your presentation makes sense. But I have one question. If you can answer in a logical way then I could put this baby to rest: WHERE ARE THE VIDEOS OF THE PENTAGON CRASH. WYH ARE THEY CLASSIFIED?


The only ones insisting there even are any further videos of the passenger jet are those damned fool conspriacy web sites, and they're the ones insisting there's some sinister secret plot going on to begin with. Contrary to popular rumor, the Pentagon didn't aim a camera at every garbage can and traffic cone.

Tell me something: There were over a hundred eyewitnesses who specifically saw the thing hit the Pentagon, plus there are plenty of photos showing the wreckage all pver the Pentagon front lawn. What could possiby be in any video footage that the eyewitness accounts and the wreckage photos wouldn't cover, or more to the point, if you're of a mind that there's some sinister secret plot going on and all the eyewitnesses and photos of wreckage are gov't disinformation, then, why would you even believe the integrity of any video footage even if it did exist?



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
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!


Couldn't agree more muzz.

That's it in a nutshell, so simple.

Yet, a decade later, no videos.

What the hell must the average FBI agent think of all of this i wonder? If they haven't asked themselves why the video is being covered up, they shouldn't be in the job they're in...come to that, if they aren't kicking up the biggest stink in history about this, to the last agent, they shouldn't be in the jobs they're in either!

No job security is worth more than exposing treason and mass murder on a grand scale, none.

If they know the truth, but are keeping their mouths shut to keep their jobs, then they are complicit in the murder and treason, regardless of having no foreknowledge of it.

Speak up FBI agents...come on, *do your duty*, remember your oath to the American people, something about enemies both foreign and *domestic*?



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   


We can, instead, turn to a handful that showed the results of the HIGH speed impacts with other surfaces.....the ground, or the water. And, have no illusion, striking the water is equivalent, from the forces and physics standpoint, as striking solid objects like concrete.
"Weedwhacker"

OK.

Lets look at a few then Mr Weedwhacker since you have spoken about how the impact of high speed aircraft on the water & land is eqivulant to striking concrete as referenced to the Pentagon.


Popular Mechanics * May 31, 2009, debris from Air France A330 passenger jet

The piece above is nice & large and it impacted the water at high speed. Hitting the water is similiar to hitting concrete as stated by Weedwhacker.


Planecrashinfo.com
Above - Lauda Air Flight 004 crashed into the jungles of Thailand after the No. 1 thrust reverser inadvertently deployed while the aircraft was at 31,000 feet causing the plane to plunge to the ground.


Planecrashinfo.com
Above - Swissair MD-11 that crashed into the Atlantic Ocean after experiencing an uncontrollable fire aboard.



Above and below photos - These are pictures of a Pacific Southwest Airlines Boeing 727 as it goes down over San Diego, California after a mid-air collision with a Cessna 172. All 135 aboard the Boeing 727 and 2 on the Cessna as well as 7 people on the ground were killed.


Planecrashinfo.com - both photos above.


In each of these there is a noticable amount of debris leftover to distinguish what crashed as an airliner. If the water and land claim theory is correct as Weedwhacker has stated, then these serve as direct proof as to what should have happened when the building was struck, per the OS by an airliner.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   
White Streak in 4 frames = cruise missile. Easy as that. Boeings don't emit a white plume of smoke as they fly, nor do Global Hawks. The White smoke is from a solid fuel rocket.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 
Dave, I not sure what Galileo and the Catholic church has to do with anything we're talking about but please remember that you can't speak for me. If, and that's a big if, you can show me a picture of an airliner within 500 feet of the pentagon then I'll fold like a lawn chair in november. By the way, isn't it odd that after spending millions of dollars re-inforcing just that one section of the pentagon, they forgot to put any cameras to watch it.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by AllIsOne
reply to post by weedwhacker


The only ones insisting there even are any further videos of the passenger jet are those damned fool conspriacy web sites, and they're the ones insisting there's some sinister secret plot going on to begin with. Contrary to popular rumor, the Pentagon didn't aim a camera at every garbage can and traffic cone.





Uh, then please explain this....

911research.wtc7.net...

There were plenty of other cameras pointed toward the pentagon!


You have lost all credibility as your agenda is so transparent that you have let your ideology get in the way of your common sense; therefore who should I believe? You, who as far as I know have no credentials for anything, or these guys?

patriotsquestion911.com...

Here's a hint.....it ain't you with your snotty attitude, arrogance and demeaning of ATS members that have a different interpretation of the facts.
edit on 27-12-2010 by whaaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee

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!


Hi mikelee, it’s really not that amazing in my opinion, the same did in fact happen with the killing of US President Kennedy.
The million dollar question for that tragedy is that WHO were in reality responsible for that, and WHAT were the real motives behind it, because I cannot believe in any way that it was done by the person [Lee Harvey Oswald ] they “the US government” back then claimed it was done.

I am convinced that the same will happen with 911.
And the trillion dollar question for that tragedy is, WHO were in reality responsible for executing 911, and WHAT were the real motives behind it.

It’s precisely because of what you said in your second line

they can't release the footage at any cost!


The stakes are in fact obviously extremely high.

I am convinced that the so called reasons or claimed evidence which “green lighted” so to say the start of the first Iraq war was in reality mostly based upon lies, misleading and disinformation, and I suppose that many countries around the world were at a certain moment very aware of that.

So in order to get permission or collect “enough” support to get the “green light” so to say for starting the second war over there which can be most likely connected in my opinion with the same extremely important reason for starting the first war, they could not make that same mistake again.
So it looks to me as if they did use an even far more sinister and horror like complot for that by using a so called created/false flag terrorist attack on US soil.

But this is the trillion dollar question I ask myself again and again,

If 911 was indeed an inside job, what I really think it was after reading and seeing so much footage and information about it, what on Earth, or perhaps even beyond Earth could have been so important and made it so necessary to invade Iraq for the second time?

Because it was as I always believed for many years not done for the oil over there or to get some level of control in that area or to get necessary rid of Saddam Hoessein.

edit on 27/12/10 by spacevisitor because: Made some corrections and did some adding




top topics



 
136
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join