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: 18
136
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


Thanks for your thoughts!

Not necessarily an "inside job" but elements within? I believe that sums it up more than a complicity of the POTUS & VP etc. There ARE elements within that operate and anyone who claims they work for the government and say thats not true, is simply not in the know.




posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
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.



The reason I mentioned them is that Gallileo simply reported what he has seen, and the Catholic Church squashed him because what he reported he had seen contradicted what they wanted to believe. Compare that to the hundred or so eyewitnesses who specifically saw the passenger jet hit the pentagon:

Eyewitness accounts of the Pentagon attack

...and yet you refuse to believe them because they contradict your belief that some some sinister secret conspiracy is afoot. When architect Terrance Keane said he looked out his window while packing to move and saw a "very, very large passenger jet" that "plowed right into the Pentagon", the only way you can interpret anything different out of this is if you have an agenda to push your own alternative scenario regardless of what the facts actually show.

FYI the phrase "isn't it odd" is a standard tool used for disingenuous innuendo dropping (I.E. making accusations without actually coming out and saying them) and it will be considered as such.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 
Your right Dave. You represent the Catholic church and I represent Galileo. I only hope it doesn't take 400 yrs. to prove you are wrong.


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



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Again, if there was an airliner then show the damn tapes that depict one. Otherwise all your rhetoric is equal to that of the opposite side of the coin calling the kettle black. Funny how our system works when in reality it shows it's own flaws by design.....

Hearsay is not allowed in court to indict not prove that anything actually happened. Yet we are supposed to believe all of the hearsay when it comes to 911 events because the FedGov says it happened that way? Yet that very same FedGov won't allow a citizen to use hearsay to prove anything.

Typical procrastination but utilized when its convenient.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Jesse Ventura's Conspiracy Theory show, the episode on the Pentagon.

Pay attention to the Barbara Olsen phone call part, very interesting since that call has been proven a lie. It never took place!!


edit on 12/27/2010 by mikelee because: Add text.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa
 

Uh, then please explain this....

911research.wtc7.net...

There were plenty of other cameras pointed toward the pentagon!


Would you mind terribly explaining how your link supposedly supports your claim rather than mine? I am quoting your link verbatim here...

"September 9, 2005: Special Agent Jacqueline Maguire of the FBI's Counterterrorism Division files a DECLARATION describing her search for records responsive to Bingham's FOIA request. Maguire admits to determining that 85 videotapes in the FBI's possession are "potentially responsive" the request, that she personally viewed 29 of the tapes, and that she located only one videotape that showed the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon. Maguire also refers to "one videotape taken from a closed circuit television at a Doubletree Hotel in Arlington Virginia," but states that it did not show the impact of Flight 77. "

The single videotape she was referring to was obviously the videotape released that same year, and it reveals the videotape from the Doubletree Hotel doesn't show the impact, making it unusable for yoru conspiracy stories either way. Then there's-

"September 15, 2006: Judicial Watch announces the release of video from CITGO gas station. 3 The video consists mostly of views of the interior of the gas station and does not appear to capture the attack.
December 2, 2006: Judicial Watch obtains a video recording from the Doubletree Hotel in Arlington. The video, which does not include a view of the Pentagon's facade, shows an explosion but does not capture an approaching jetliner."


Not only do they repeat the Doubletree video offers no usable footage, it also reveals the Citgo gas station offers no usable footage. The rest of the link simply goes over the lawsuits and responses to the lawsuits, which mean absolutely nothing.


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?


I really don't know what manner of children's game you're playing here, but I really don't care. All you wound up doing with this stunt is to prove the often repeated "85 videos" offer no additional footage than the one released in 2005. You conspiracy people have just been caught red handed at lying through your teeth from your insisting on seeing material you just admitted doesn't even exist. You people have absolutely no intention of giving up your conspiracy mongoring.

I do have to thank you for this link, since it suitably proves my posts and suitably disproves yours. I will bookmark it accordingly for future use here. You're proud of yourself, I'm sure.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Again, if there was an airliner then show the damn tapes that depict one. Otherwise all your rhetoric is equal to that of the opposite side of the coin calling the kettle black. Funny how our system works when in reality it shows it's own flaws by design.....


Not a single one of you has shown that any further video even exists. Rather, one of your partners in crime here just posted a link to testimony showing that out of the 85 videos you conspiracy people keep harping about, the only one that showed any usable footage was the one released in 2005. All the other tapes (I.E. the Citgo station and the Doubletree Hotel) either show only the explosion and not the aircraft itself, or it doesn't show anything at all.


Hearsay is not allowed in court to indict not prove that anything actually happened.


Incorrect terminology. Heresay is repeating something that someone else said. I'm quoting the actual testimony from the people themselves. Ironically, one of the testimonies listed was from the photographer who took the famous photo of the fuselage wreckage on the Pentagon lawn, which is almost exactly what you're insisting on seeing. What you're doing isn't research- it's grasping at straws to avoid having to admit your conspiracies are wrong.

Why don't you just have the intellectual honesty and admit it- there is absolutely nothing under the sun that will convince you to drop these inane conspriacy stories of yours.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 





Not a single one of you has shown that any further video even exists.


Each of the tapes were confiscated by the FBI. 85 in total and I stated in an earlier post before you and another one of your GS-15 buds came into the thread, that the Citgo tape and another was useless. This is common knowledge. However there are others that are mounted on the exterior of the Pentagon including on that face from the helipad towards the impact point......Where is THAT footage?

They are all in the custody of the FBI and stored at Iron Mountain because of an internal memo that the FBI feared the footage might be leaked by a sympathizer from within.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Whoa, hold up, there Big Fella.
Im sure you dont read entire posts or articles or watch full videos before commenting on them. This pretty much proves it.
Go ahead and save this thread and try to use it some sort of proof, but be assured when you do, you will again be found out to be a fraud.



Originally posted by GoodOlDave

"September 9, 2005: Special Agent Jacqueline Maguire of the FBI's Counterterrorism Division files a DECLARATION describing her search for records responsive to Bingham's FOIA request. Maguire admits to determining that 85 videotapes in the FBI's possession are "potentially responsive" the request, that she personally viewed 29 of the tapes, and that she located only one videotape that showed the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon. Maguire also refers to "one videotape taken from a closed circuit television at a Doubletree Hotel in Arlington Virginia," but states that it did not show the impact of Flight 77. "


She viewed 29 of the 85 tapes.
Still leaves 56 tapes unaccounted for. Unless Im missing something.



I do have to thank you for this link, since it suitably proves my posts and suitably disproves yours. I will bookmark it accordingly for future use here. You're proud of yourself, I'm sure.


Here is the video.


It doesn't show anything. It can't be used one way or another.
I wonder where the first 5 seconds of the video are, that could possible show something, like a plane
on his descent.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


grasping eh? That describes more what the OS is doing after its own Senior Counsel called the 911 Final Report a lie. But you people continue on promoting the lie to others in hopes of converting some folks to your side. Only problem is the side your own won't provide the footage to back up it's own claims. If you folks wish to promote lies, half truths and failures to provide conclusive truth then thats fine. However I do not believe a single word you say.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 



They are all in the custody of the FBI and stored at Iron Mountain because of an internal memo that the FBI feared the footage might be leaked by a sympathizer from within.


And where, pray tell, is this coming from?

And for possibly the 10,000th time there is no "at Iron Mountain". Iron Mountain is the name of a private company that has storage sites all over the country.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


WHY do I have to keep correcting you OSers over this again & again? Watch the video and wave your hand as "corrected". Again.

Iron Mountain




posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


Iron Mountain is the name of the COMPANY, not the location of the storage facility.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


The company's locale in Pennsylvania is Iron Mountain. The company is also called Iron Mountain.


By Gary Haynes
From Inside Iron Mountain, PA

Bill Gates caught flak from photographic historians and researchers in 1995 when he moved his vast Corbis photographic collection from New York City to a refrigerated cave 220 feet beneath the ground in a rural Pennsylvania mountain, near Butler, about an hour’s drive northeast of Pittsburgh. The move, which took place between summer 2001 and March 2002, required 19 refrigerated trucks.

The photographs might be preserved, critics said, but nobody would ever again have easy access to them. "Far from the reach of historians," huffed The New York Times. Most of those skeptics now realize that Gates — and Gates is Corbis, which he founded in 1989 — did the right thing. He has preserved an irreplaceable photographic history and has kept it accessible
Read more here



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 





Contrary to popular rumor, the Pentagon didn't aim a camera at every garbage can and traffic cone.


You are correct, there is probably a triple redundancy.

Also, instead of playing dumb and negating a valid question you could make yourself useful and answer the only question that matters: WHY ARE THE PENTAGON CRASH TAPES CLASSIFIED?



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 

From the Iron Mountain Company website / history. Note Livingston, NY and Hudosn River Valley.


Herman Knaust founded Iron Mountain in 1951 in Livingston, NY. Hailed as the “Mushroom King” by his Hudson River Valley neighbors, Knaust first made his fortune by growing and marketing mushrooms. In 1936, he paid $9,000 for a depleted iron ore mine and 100 acres of land so that he could have more space to grow his product. But by 1950, the mushroom market had shifted, so Mr. Knaust decided upon a new business venture—one that would make good use of his mine, which he named "Iron Mountain."


In fact, the mine depicted in the video is not even an iron mine, its a salt mine.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by mikelee
 



They are all in the custody of the FBI and stored at Iron Mountain because of an internal memo that the FBI feared the footage might be leaked by a sympathizer from within.


And where, pray tell, is this coming from?

And for possibly the 10,000th time there is no "at Iron Mountain". Iron Mountain is the name of a private company that has storage sites all over the country.


As MikeLee pointed out, there is apparently an Iron Mountain.
But my question is....what relevance does it have. Whether it be in a top secret bunker in the White House, on an island heavily guarded by the US military or in Barrack Obama's sock drawer?
The video is somewhere and is not being shown.
Why argue about semantics?
Its just a way to overthrow a thread when you having nothing concrete to add.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by AllIsOne
 



WHY ARE THE PENTAGON CRASH TAPES CLASSIFIED?


Which ones? Or are these the ones you are assuming exist but have no evidence of?



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
* * * *
Would you mind terribly explaining how your link supposedly supports your claim rather than mine? I am quoting your link verbatim here...

"September 9, 2005: Special Agent Jacqueline Maguire of the FBI's Counterterrorism Division files a DECLARATION describing her search for records responsive to Bingham's FOIA request. Maguire admits to determining that 85 videotapes in the FBI's possession are "potentially responsive" the request, that she personally viewed 29 of the tapes, and that she located only one videotape that showed the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon. Maguire also refers to "one videotape taken from a closed circuit television at a Doubletree Hotel in Arlington Virginia," but states that it did not show the impact of Flight 77. "

* * * *


Dear G.O.D.: You know very well that it's important to carefully parse agent McGuire's words. She doesn't say that none of the videos reveal the type of aircraft or missile which struck the Pentagon. She says, per your post, that "she located only one videotape that showed the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon" and that no others show "the impact of Flight 77".

It is well known, even by you dear G.O.D. that no video showing "the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon" has been released. The video she refers to shows no more than a blur approaching the Pentagon followed by an explosion. Agent McGuire's declaration that the blur was Flight 77 is pure speculation.

What agent McGuire does not say is as important as what she does say. Notice that she does not say that none of the videos identifiably reveal the object as it approached the Pentagon. She merely says that none of the other videos show the impact. That's a clever bit of careful wordsmithing plainly designed to throw the trackers off the scent.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by dubiousone
 



Here's the actual declaration;

www.judicialwatch.org...

Maybe its best to respond to what is in there. Not some conspiracy website partial quotations.



new topics

top topics



 
136
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join