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: 20
136
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xterrain
I'll say it again since no one listened the first time.

White plume of smoke in all 4 or 5 frames...cruise missile people.



No one is listening to you for the simple fact that you are wrong.

Cruise missiles use jet engines. They only use the solid-fuel rocket boosters for launch.




posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by backinblack
 



My, you are the only person saying that..


How do you figure that?



Could you please link to a credible source that says there was a 90' hole prior to collapse and that the engines penetrated the wall??


Sure.
911research.wtc7.net...

On this photo I've circled the engine impact point in yellow for your convenience. Of course one or both of the engines may have already been damaged by impact with the generators and lampposts and what not on the way in. So their structural integrity may not have been at their hole punching optimum. Never-the-less they did leave large holes behind.


Furthermore, this photo show a close-up of the left engine impact hole. You can see it beyond the top of the burning fire. Before you pooh-pooh the 'mild' wing damage beyond the impact hole, remember that the wing is quite flimsy past the chassis that supports the engines. The hole damage basically aligns with that chassis, the wing tips are purposely designed to be lightweight and flex. They are not substantial at all, and were torn into shreds and blown all over the place.






you keep showing the same pictures, the one with the two relatively undamaged cars does more to prove it wasn't a plane. a 757 is over 40ft in height at the very least the engines would have smacked right into those 2 cars and obliterated them. there should be jet fuel all over the lawn and the cars. you're telling me the force of a jet travelling over 500 miles an hour could't even break a few office windows directly in its flight path. it's laughable.

the fact there are no skid marks or burn marks anywhere is incredible. a boeing 757 is over 155ft in length. there isn't even a skid mark 10 ft from the wall. it doesn't look like anything crashed into it. it looks more like a bomb blast than anything else.

you have arrows pointing to where the wings impacted, yet directly in front of it is a flimsy metal fence that wasn't even knocked over. and again, there are barely any broken windows, no jet fuel stains and burns, right at the wing impact site, where a jet stores it's fuel.

just face the facts. something very evil happened on 9/11, and i'm not just talking about osama bin laden. they gambled that the american people are as stupid and ignorant as the rest of the world says they are and it looks like they were right
edit on 28-12-2010 by randomname because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by randomname


just face the facts. something very evil happened on 9/11, and i'm not just talking about osama bin laden. they gambled that the american people are as stupid and ignorant as the rest of the world says they are and it looks like they were right
edit on 28-12-2010 by randomname because: (no reason given)


I starred your post.

I'd say you hit the nail on the head in almost every instance. That one exception is where you lump all Americans in the same compost pile. Not all of us are stupid and ignorant "mushrooms." Some of us want the videos released for review. We know fungus when we smell it.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 03:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Xterrain
 


They say the smoke is there because one of the engines hit a dumpster on the way in ...


edit on 28-12-2010 by AllIsOne because: clarity



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 03:31 AM
link   
reply to post by randomname
 


Where to start? Lets see...I guess at the beginning...



you keep showing the same pictures,


That is because 'you folks' refuse to see what is in the pictures



the one with the two relatively undamaged cars does more to prove it wasn't a plane.


The cars are beyond extreme left end of the planes left wing tip impact site, yet they got obliterated. Your definition of 'relatively undamaged' would do an insurance salesman proud.



a 757 is over 40ft in height


That is wheels down tail height above ground. The wheels were not down, they weren't landing, they were crashing. The fuselage diameter is less than 20 feet in diameter.



at the very least the engines would have smacked right into those 2 cars and obliterated them.


the cars are nowhere near where the engines impacted the building. They are way out beyond the left wing tip.



there should be jet fuel all over the lawn and the cars.


well, the cars are on fire, how did that happen? The jet fuel ignited when the wings impacted the building which resulted in the rather large fireball and that plasma kept going forwards at 500 mph. Why would it splash back out onto the lawn?



you're telling me the force of a jet travelling over 500 miles an hour could't even break a few office windows directly in its flight path. it's laughable.


It broke a lot of windows. And those are blast proof windows too. Yes, the wingtips, probably couldn't break many blast proof windows in the most secure blast reinforced building in the worlds at 500 mph. But they still did quite a bit of damage none-the-less. Lightweight aluminum skin doesn't have much chance against a concrete wall, even at 500 mph. The stiff chassis structure extends only as far as the engine mounts, about a third of the way from the fuselage to the wing tip.



the fact there are no skid marks or burn marks anywhere is incredible.

Well, not incredible, but definitely amazing, and certainly unfortunate. They did hit a lot of light poles and construction trailers and ventilation shaft surrounds though. Had they hit the ground, they wouldn't have done anywhere near the damage they did, I suppose.



a boeing 757 is over 155ft in length. there isn't even a skid mark 10 ft from the wall. it doesn't look like anything crashed into it. it looks more like a bomb blast than anything else.

No it doesn't. A bomb blast would have pushed crap in all directions. Your very argument of nothing 'splashed' back out along the angle of approach eliminates the possibility of a bomb blast. This was absolutely has the signature of a high speed projectile with the added complication of a heck of a lot of aviation fuel igniting.



you have arrows pointing to where the wings impacted, yet directly in front of it is a flimsy metal fence that wasn't even knocked over. and again, there are barely any broken windows, no jet fuel stains and burns, right at the wing impact site, where a jet stores it's fuel.

They're not my arrows, of course. I'm just passing on photos that someone else has annotated. (except the one of the simulation of the plane angle where I drew yellow circles around the spots where the engines impacted).

The metal fence that is standing is well to the left of the impact point. While there are a couple of standing panels on the left side of the photo, it is quite plain that there are none to the right. They have been destroyed.



just face the facts. something very evil happened on 9/11,

The only thing true thing in your entire post.



and i'm not just talking about osama bin laden. they gambled that the american people are as stupid and ignorant as the rest of the world says they are and it looks like they were right

I understand your self hatred runs deep, but I don't think this concept is going to win you many disciples in your ignorance.


edit on 28/12/2010 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 04:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
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.


Thank you for that link. I have read the agent's entire declaration. It actually strengthens the point made in my post to which you replied. I would urge everyone to read her declaration in full and notice for yourselves that she never asserts there is no video which shows the aerial object approaching the Pentagon. What she does say is that there is just one video which shows Flight 77 impacting the Pentagon and that they released it.

Of course, those who have been paying close attention to this issue know that the video which she claims shows Flight 77 impacting the Pentagon shows no such thing.

Is she perhaps a victim of the dreaded "confirmation bias"?
edit on 12/28/2010 by dubiousone because: Spelling



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
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.
...


This has been brought up many times before but as always when the reason why nnot all footage is released people who just want to believe what they want to believe DON'T WANT TO BELIEVE...

You are talking about the Pentagon... To release ALL footage, which is what many of you have been asking for, is to give out the areas that are being monitored, and if there are automatic surveillance cameras you would also know how often they pan around and the time that it takes them to do so... In general you are asking for detailed information of one of the most secure buildings in the nation. BTW, before one of you tries to mak a joke of it, NO building, no matter how secure is can avoid an attack like this. However, why don't you also ask for complete unrestricted access into the Pentagon?...

I am thinking at least some of the people who began asking for "all footage" are working for some agency, or nation that would love to have this information.

Many of you obviously haven't figured out by now that not so friendly nations, and groups use disasters such as this one, and people and groups like "the 911 truthers" to their advantage and to gather info or even to forment dissent...



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 08:23 AM
link   


.. In general you are asking for detailed information of one of the most secure buildings in the nation. BTW, before one of you tries to mak a joke of it, NO building, no matter how secure is can avoid an attack like this.

Big Lol , you debunk yourself with your post ,most secure building in the nation and hit by a plane 30 minutes after two planes hit the twin towers .Are fighter jets going 10 mp/h ?



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 09:06 AM
link   
Great thread op S&F. On Jesse Ventura's show "Conspiracy theory"(Not a big fan of the name they chose for that show) last friday they talked about this. The biggest peice of evidence for me is the fact trained pilot's can't pull off the manuver the so called plane did that hit the pentagon. Not to mention that the guy we are being told that flew it could bairly handle a cessna.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 09:15 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 





I am thinking at least some of the people who began asking for "all footage" are working for some agency, or nation that would love to have this information.


As for myself, the footage I am interested in is what was comandeered from the surrounding civilian establishments (gas stations, banks, hotels, webcams, storage facilities, traffic surveillance, etc). I'm sure the cams within the pentagon would show sensitive information, or exhibit timing patterns. I'm more interested in the off premise surveillance. The only internal surveillance I would like to see is the view from an outer D-ring as it would show the physics of the 9' rupture through the inner C-ring.

add: What I'm looking to determine is how/why a passenger aircraft can penetrate 6 reinforced concrete walls 2 feet thick, whereas on the towers, the plane did not penetrate with the same result, given the fact that they were both doing about the same speed.
edit on 28-12-2010 by OuttaTime because: added



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   

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


So what evidence do you have that she found anything more, other than 'none whatsoever'? Your own link showed that she only found one, and as you conspiracy people have so infamously showed, you didn't even believe that one. More to the point, why would you believe any video even if she did find another one?

All this bit about the videotapes is nothing but a red herring on your part anyway. As I've already shown, it wasn't just one, or two, or even three, people who specifically saw the plane hit the Pentagon. It was over a HUNDRED witnesses, including one who took photographs of the wreckage, and the link I showed listed them by name. You people will happily bleat out WITNESSES HEARD EXPLOSIONS AT THE WTC and insist on how important these eyewitness accounts are, but when it's an established fact that WITNESSES SAW A PASSENGER JET you turn around and say they cannot be believed. Trying to actually get you people to point out what you'll actually accept as credible evidence is like trying to nail jam to the wall, so it's clear that credibility has absolutely nothing to do with the source and everything to do with whether it happens to agree with you.

Since you take such umbrage in my saying you are just mindlessly swallowing whatever drivel those damned fool conspiracy web sites are shoveling out, would you mind terribly explaining the rationale behind your double standard?
edit on 28-12-2010 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by OuttaTime
 
Even though your query about the penetration of six two foot thick walls makes perfect sense to me, Wack will show you some diagrams, Ol Dave will point out how irritated he is and Hoop will tell you what an idiot you are for asking such a question. It's the same bunch every time, time after time. But because we have the truth to answer to, I'm certain that we will prevail.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by OuttaTime
 
Even though your query about the penetration of six two foot thick walls makes perfect sense to me, Wack will show you some diagrams, Ol Dave will point out how irritated he is and Hoop will tell you what an idiot you are for asking such a question. It's the same bunch every time, time after time. But because we have the truth to answer to, I'm certain that we will prevail.



yup. I expect it. Such a wide diversity we have here on ATS. But because there is this type of adversity on ATS, it explains why conspiracy researchers never seem to carry credibility. Everything gets whitewashed with 500 pages of near-miss diagrams and condescending remarks. But then again, truth is what every individual sees as 'the truth'. That's why we have more than 1 program on TV



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

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?


What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Please illustrate the location of the camera covering the helipad, as well as the angle of the helipad that it's covering. If the camera is simply pointing at the helipad itself then it wouldn't have captured flight 77 becuase it didn't pass over the helipad. If you can't show its location then it's a reasonable assuption there is no usable footage from that camera and you're making all this drivel up on your own becuase you don't want to admit you're wrong.


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.


Which one of those damned fool conspiracy web sites did you get that tidbit from?



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Damned fool conspiracy websites?
Easy Dave.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
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.


What cracks me up is that you trusters will deny you're just mindlessly swallowing whatever drivel you find on some web site somewhere, and in the same breath you mindlessly post some Youtube video posted by some conspiracy monger. Earth to mikelee...Iron Mountain is NOT a "top secret gov't facility" despite whatever your video is trying to claim. It's a company that owns secure storage facilities and anyone with important materials can contract their services. My company uses them to keep our financial records, and they keep sending me sales material for us to contract with them to store our off site dish to disk backups. *You* could store your belongings with them if you wanted to, so you've come to the wrong person to sell your abject paranoia here.

If I really need to explain something so elementary like why the gov't would want to keep their investigation material at Iron mountain rather than in a cardboard box lying outside in the rain, then you're not anyone to be posting conspiracy rhetoric here.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by dubiousone
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.


OR...you're so desperate to find even a microbe of actual tangible evidence to back up these sinister secret plots you're "so sure" is there somewhere that you'll even microanalyze other people's grammer and punctuation looking for hidden meanings. This isn't research. It's a Rorschach test.

Tell me, how come you're not going over the grammer and punctuation of the hundred or so eyewitnesses who testify they specifically saw flight 77 hitting the Pentagon? Those people were all there and saw with their own eyes what happened. Agent McGuire wasn't.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by OuttaTime
 
Even though your query about the penetration of six two foot thick walls makes perfect sense to me, Wack will show you some diagrams, Ol Dave will point out how irritated he is and Hoop will tell you what an idiot you are for asking such a question. It's the same bunch every time, time after time. But because we have the truth to answer to, I'm certain that we will prevail.



No you don't. Otherwise you'd be taking the side of the hundred or so eyewitnesses becuase they were there and saw with their own eyes it was flight 77 that hit the Pentagon, rather than taking the side of Dylan Avery and Alex Jones because you trust everything they say. Heck, every time I post the list of eyewitness accounts you all run away like three card monty players do when the cops show up.

Eyewitness accounts of the Pentagon attack



new topics

top topics



 
136
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join