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: 21
136
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

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

Originally posted by OuttaTime

Because when I saw it live right after the impact, I immediately noticed there was no luggage, clothing, seats, bodies, wings, tail sections, etc. It was just a hole. I read an article (I forget what site as it was a few years ago), that the county coroner arrived and found no bodies to account for.


So in other words, you weren't there. You saw ten seconds of aerial television footage of a burned out hole and instantly decided you were a crash site forensics specialist and knew what to look for. I will ask again- what expertise in crash site analysis do you have? Can you look at wreckage and determine wither they crashed while doing a belly landing vs head on into the ground, as United 93 did?

This is the exact same fallacy as the one the Pentagon people are trying to pull. They have zero background in aeronautical engineering or architectiral science and they swallow whatever drivel Dylan Avery and Alex Jones is shoveling out entilely on the basis that it appeals to their abject paranoia. Here's a question for you, and it applies to the Pentagon people too: why on EARTH would these supposed conspirators waste their time with all this staged crash site and cruise missile foolishness when we know full well they already had at least two disposable passenger jets under their control from the WTC attack? Simply use more passenger jets.




posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


Fascinating. mikelee reposts his entire OP?? With an editorial comment added (which will be reproduced shortly) that complains that people actually [gasp] disagree with the vast majority of what was presented in his OP!! Yet, reviewing the posts from members who are in here agreeing with and lapping up the rather ludicrous points made, who posted AFTER you wrote this ---- I see the usual glad-handing and backslapping one another, along with the not-so-thinly-veiled attack at yours truly (with the "appeal" to the mods at the end, in-post...how sweet). So, WHO would you say are not sticking to your topic?:


We have some of the ATS 911 forum stalkers in here that shift the questions by reading into the original post what they wish then asking questions that have nothing to do with the thread topic at all. These few (and we know who they are) are present for one purpose. While forum rules prevent me from saying exactly why they are here by citing the term most appropriate to describe their activity in the forum, the best way to keep on topic of the thread is to either ignore them or remind them of the thread's topic when they post questions that are asked to side track the thread.

These few are present in many of the 911 threads and those of us who are talking about any particular topic that upsets them about the perceived lies of the events surrounding 911can combat this again, as stated by ignoring them regardless of their tone or remind them of the topic and move on. Lets not allow this conspiracy forum to be polluted by a select "chosen few" thugs.



Step back, get a coffee, and take a careful look at the responses, starting from page #1, to your OP. Pay very close attention to the information and evidence presented that refute your Original Point in the Original Post.

Essentially, your premise is not valid. The premise is: "No camera footage = No plane. A reasonable assumption."

Statement fragment #1: "No camera footage" is demonstrably false.

Statement fragment #2: "No plane" is inherently "linked" to the first....and, is therefore non sequitor. Which means, of course, the "conclusion" as to the reasonableness of the "assumption" is equally invalid.

That is the title that you wrote. The body of the OP? Off onto another tangent, of course...."Global Hawks" and such. Pointed out (and ignored? Why?) to you that the "GH" story is pure fantasy, can be shown to have an evolutionary point where it was concocted and lacks any physical evidence, whatsoever, to substantiate it.

SO, what is the game, here? Thread title incongruous with the body of the post.....heck, you complain about thread "diversion"? It started right there! AND, when the easily proven facts that your premise was not valid were pointed out? More obfuscation, and hand-waving and pushing aside true evidence, in favor of yet more of the same repeated misconceptions that have infected this topic, for so long.

Again, urging you to go back and start reviewing from page #1....because, if I recall correctly, I chimed in to point out the basis of the logical fallacy with which this thread is based.

In case you missed my earlier point......No camera footage = No plane is not logical, has no comparable precedent, and is, frankly, utter rubbish.


edit on 28 December 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 
post removed by staff



All right, fine. Please explain why I should believe everything Dylan Avery and Alex Jones says rather than the eyewitnesses why were actually there at the Pentagon and saw that it was flight 77 that hit it. It's an honest question so it deserves an honest answer.

Eyewitness accounts of the Pentagon attack

While you're at it, please explain to me that if I'm the one with an agenda then why is it that getting a straight answer out of you conspiracy people on this is like trying to nail jam to the wall.


edit on Tue Dec 28 2010 by DontTreadOnMe because: quoted post removed by staff



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 01:32 PM
link   

HEADS UP



The 9/11 troll rules have NOT gone away.

That means no personal attacks, no overt sarcasm and no attempts to bait and goad other people into responding.

From this point onward, discuss the topic and NOT each other

Can't be civilised and do that? Then don't post.

This is your only warning.




edit on 28/12/10 by neformore because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Screw witness testimony..humans are easily duped, they are easily and often mistaken, and make seemingly logical but ultimately incorrect assumptions on a daily basis.

That's *exactly* why we *demand* to see *all* of the confiscated video and film.

To rule out the fallible human equation, and base our conclusions on the available video and film evidence is essential to discovering a great many details of the Pentagon incident.

Although the FBI claims there are no video or film segments that purport show an aircraft (of whatever type) *impacting* the Pentagon, this doesn't mean that there is no video or film of an aircraft on *approach*, or in the seconds prior to impact on a course directly heading for the impact point.

Of course, the video may show nothing of the sort - no approaching flight 77, no approaching missile, no approaching anything...not even the impact into the Pentagon...so i ask a simple question, to which there *has* to be by definition, a simple answer..

If there is no video or film among *any* of the confiscated video and film, of flight 77 on a direct intercept course with the impact zone in the Pentagon, or of *any* other aerial object on an intercept course, and *no* footage of anything actually *impacting* the Pentagon...what exactly is the reason for not releasing the video and film?

Myriad illogical reasons have been given, from 'preventing propaganda', to not upsetting the public with video and images of exploding aircraft hitting the Pentagon..how can these be valid reasons for withholding the footage, *if* as we have been officially told, NO FOOTAGE OF THE AIRCRAFT or OBJECT exists, impacting or otherwise!?

So then why is the footage still being kept from the public?



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Why is it you do not question the total lack of evidence of a plane there...the fact that none of the eyewitnesses you speak of seem at all credible, the fact they all saw different stuff, and the police and reporters could see nothing of which you speak.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 01:52 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Found this in your testemonies link:



Cleveland, Allen
Soon after the crash (Within 30 seconds of the crash) I witnessed a military cargo plane (Possibly a C130) fly over the crash site and circle the mushroom cloud. My brother inlaw also witnessed the same plane following the jet while he was on the HOV lanes in Springfield. He said that he saw a jetliner flying low over the tree tops near Seminary RD in Springfield, VA. and soon afterwards a military plane was seen flying right behind it. I think this was also a reason for the false threat of another plane about to crash which caused rescuers to have to evacuate for a short time after the initial crash. I have done my research onthis and according to time magazine it took 24 minutes before Norad was supposedly notified about this particuliar jet and fighters were scrambling to intercept at that time. Isn't it odd how there is Not a single mention of this aircraft in ANY of the articles written about this crash? Also if you had not noticed... There is not a single picture or live footage of the actual jet prior to its crash at the Pentagon. Nor is there any of the one that crashed in Pennsylvania. But if Anyone who rides the metro-rail knows, there are plenty of Video cameras all around National airport at the parking Garages and the high level security buildings found all around Crystal city. (3 of which I have personally found pointed directly towards crystal city which would have given a great line of site shot of that jet prior to the crash as well as any other plane which might have been following it. I personally believe that the government new full well that this was about to happen and they are hiding something a lot bigger than they are willing to let out. I was interviewed at Washingtonpost.com and gave them my full story, but they did not print it as I have told you. I also find it interesting that one of the planes engines in the pennsylvania crash was supposedly found 5 miles prior to the crash site (This information I'm unsure of). The only thing that I'm aware of that might cause that would be a heat seeking missle. A weapon which I am pretty familiar with form Ord.training. I'm not saying that the government new exactly what was about to happen, but I do believe that they are definitely hiding something here. Many of my friends in intelligence have said the same. I work in a Gov. building in DC., but my heart is right there with you and your team. I hope you and those who served with you are doing well. Take care.


McClellan, Kenneth
The crew of a military cargo plane watched helplessly on Sept. 11 as a hijacked airliner plunged into the Pentagon, a defense official confirmed Tuesday. The report confirms the eyewitness account of two Hampton Roads residents who were near the Pentagon that day and said they saw a second plane flying near the doomed passenger jet. A C-130 cargo plane had departed Andrews Air Force Base en route to Minnesota that morning and reported seeing an airliner heading into Washington 'at an unusual angle,' said Lt. Col. Kenneth McClellan, a Pentagon spokesman. Air-traffic control officials instructed the propeller-powered cargo plane 'to let us know where it's going,' McClellan said. But, he said, there was no attempt to intercept the hijacked airliner. 'A C-130 obviously goes slower than a jet,' McClellan said. 'There was no way he was going to intercept anything.' The C-130 pilot 'followed the aircraft and reported it was heading into the Pentagon,' he said. 'He saw it crash into the building. He saw the fireball. In the days immediately following the Sept. 11 hijackings, the Pentagon had no knowledge of the C-130's encounter, because all reports were classified by the Air National Guard, the Pentagon spokesman said. 'It was very hard to get any information out,' McClellan said. ("C-130 crew saw Pentagon strike, official confirms", Terry Scanlon et David Lerman, Daily Press, 17 octobre 2001) -

and according to Narayanan, Vinh:
But the Pentagon's wall held up like a champ. It barely budged as the nose of the plane curled upwards and crumpled before exploding into a massive fireball. The people who built that wall should be proud

Perkal, Don:
I could smell the cordite. Then I knew explosives had been set off somewhere. I looked to my right and saw a raging fire and smoke careening off the facade to the sky. (...) Two explosions, a few minutes apart, prompted me to start walking.

Roberts, Willis:
Lt. Willis Roberts : "We're having a lot of trouble in there. It's about 3,000 degrees inside. The walls, the water and the metal are hot," said Lt. Willis Roberts, U.S. Army Rescue

Siebert, Tom:
Tom Seibert : "We heard what sounded like a missile, then we heard a loud boom," said Tom Seibert, 33, a network engineer at the Pentagon. "We were sitting there and watching this thing from New York, and I said, you know, the next best target would be us. And five minutes later, boom."

Sepulveda, Noel:
It "flew above a nearby hotel and drop its landing gear.... "You could hear the engines being revved up even higher," The plane dipped its nose and crashed into the southwest side of the Pentagon. "The right engine hit high, the left engine hit low. For a brief moment, you could see the body of the plane sticking out from the side of the building. Then a ball of fire came from behind it."

Timmerman, Donald
it didn't appear to crash into the building; most of the energy was dissipated in hitting the ground, but I saw the nose break up, I saw the wings fly forward, and then the conflagration engulfed everything in flames



From what I read in those, there was multiple mentions of a 2nd explosion, and a multitude of descriptions of what the aircraft was (small passenger plane, midsize, it was silver, it was white, noiseless, deafening, 737, 747, some saw passengers, some said windows were all dark, gear was up, gear was down), and some who identified it as flight 77 (even though the flight number is not identified on the plane). What most of these testemonies do reveal is that something hit the pentagon, and an explosion occurred, and from the accounts of the witnesses near the impact, the plane was between 20-100 feet high, or in one testimony, hit his antenna.
From what I can understand from the testemonials, something indeed hit the pentagon. 2 of the testemonials spoke of a cordite smell., keeping in mind that these were identifications made by a legal rep, and a high level govt rep. I'm still sifting that link but I'm seeing a wide differentiation of the actual series of events.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by OuttaTime

Because when I saw it live right after the impact, I immediately noticed there was no luggage, clothing, seats, bodies, wings, tail sections, etc. It was just a hole. I read an article (I forget what site as it was a few years ago), that the county coroner arrived and found no bodies to account for.


So in other words, you weren't there. You saw ten seconds of aerial television footage of a burned out hole and instantly decided you were a crash site forensics specialist and knew what to look for. I will ask again- what expertise in crash site analysis do you have? Can you look at wreckage and determine wither they crashed while doing a belly landing vs head on into the ground, as United 93 did?

This is the exact same fallacy as the one the Pentagon people are trying to pull. They have zero background in aeronautical engineering or architectiral science and they swallow whatever drivel Dylan Avery and Alex Jones is shoveling out entilely on the basis that it appeals to their abject paranoia. Here's a question for you, and it applies to the Pentagon people too: why on EARTH would these supposed conspirators waste their time with all this staged crash site and cruise missile foolishness when we know full well they already had at least two disposable passenger jets under their control from the WTC attack? Simply use more passenger jets.



I watched it live for HOURS. Just because you watch a football game on TV does it then imply that a game actually happened there? I am no more a crash expert than you are apparently. Enough with the Alex Jones rhetoric already. I don't follow any of his material. And the answer yo ask for... a motive? Wow, I hope you atleast figured that out. Axis of Evil? Iraq2? CIA murders of civilians in Pakistan? Iran? Vast oil reserves?
edit on 28-12-2010 by OuttaTime because: syntax and filtering


And to reference your point of crash forensics, check this link to compare crashsites of 2 similar incidents. The 93 site looks more like back-hoe practice. I don't understand how a passenger plane can vanish into that hole. Oh, and just FYI, I studied private investigation and CSI, did construction and industrial mechanical work for 20 years. I don't drive a desk.
edit on 28-12-2010 by OuttaTime because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 02:55 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



admin edit: Do not edit insults to the staff into a thread after it has been actioned by the staff. That is a very good way to lose your account privileges.
edit on 12-28-2010 by Springer because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 03:02 PM
link   
So, the "airliner" flew into the building at 530 mph and the debris and vehicle depicted below is still there uh?




Watch this video then decide for yourself if the fence & vehicle should even be there at all. Or if this explanation per the OS is accurate.




posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Screw witness testimony..humans are easily duped, they are easily and often mistaken, and make seemingly logical but ultimately incorrect assumptions on a daily basis.


Is this the position we should likewise take when you conspiracy people claim, "witnesses heard explosions at the WTC"? *I* accept their eyewitness testimony, after all.

I'm sorry, but anyone who says, "screw eyewitness testimony" is blatantly admitting they don't give a flip about learning the truth of the events of the 9/11 attack. They will only listen to what they want to hear. You're simply the first person here who's openly admitting it.


That's *exactly* why we *demand* to see *all* of the confiscated video and film.


No, it's pretty much demonstrated that the reason you're making so much ado about this is that you want to use it to manufacture innuendo of impropriety. You've shown that you will not accept the video stills they did release, nor will you accept the photos of the wreckage lying all over the Pentagon lawn, nor will you even accept the eyewitness testimony, so if you genuinely expect us to believe you'll have some miraculous change of heart and accept any other evidence that turns up then we both know you will be lying.


If there is no video or film among *any* of the confiscated video and film, of flight 77 on a direct intercept course with the impact zone in the Pentagon, or of *any* other aerial object on an intercept course, and *no* footage of anything actually *impacting* the Pentagon...what exactly is the reason for not releasing the video and film?


Becuase it doesn't belong to them. It's the private property of the Citgo Gas station, the hotel, and whoever else they got the video footage from. If they release such video to the public and your buddies Dylan Avery and Alex Jones figure out a way to make a profit off it...and we both know full flipping well that they will...it's lawsuit city. The FBI found that out the hard way from the Zapruder film.

Why does everything in the world just have to be the result of some secret sinister conspiracy to you, anyway?



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 





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


I cannot believe you just posted that.

Your FBI (Freaking Bumbling Idiots) has stated that they do have additional tapes. In addition you posted in another post that they said they did have more footage.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 03:15 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!


Valid point! All too often here on ATS "common sense" is thrown out the window. Instead people demand "proof" of this "common sense." What they fail to understand is that their is no need for proof of common sense.
It is one of our senses and just like some people are deaf or blind, the same goes for lack of "common sense."



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


You see there is a thing called evidence and there are procedures that need to be followed. Once that it is submitted into evidence it follows a thing called a chain of custody so everyone knows where its been. If it doesnt follow the chain of custody a whole case can be tossed out. This being the biggest in US history. Also before all these stupid conspiracies started popping up, no one cared about this video. The video does show a plane hitting the building by the way. To be brutally honest I dont care what anyone here thinks what happened, I know what happened. There were 4 planes that were hijacked, 3 of which hit buildings and one hit the ground. There is overwhelming evidence that this is what occurred.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllIsOne
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


And an eyewitness claims the engine was torn off, and was being guarded by military police until it could be picked up. Yet other accounts show that same engine making a hole in the pentagon.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by OuttaTime
I watched it live for HOURS. Just because you watch a football game on TV does it then imply that a game actually happened there? I am no more a crash expert than you are apparently.


No, actually, I was working as an extra on a movie set in Virginia when it went down, and I was watching C-130s pouring out of a nearby air force base all that night, which is how I know these conspiracy mongors claiming "military stand down" are lying sacks of [censored], but that's a story for another day. Just as I'm relying on eyewitness accounts of people who were physically there at the Pentagon and saw the plane hit the building, I'm likewise relying on eyewitnesses who were physically there at Shanksville who saw the thing falling out of the sky I.E. Terry Butler and Lee Purbaugh. You'll forgive me if I don't subscribe to the idea of there being 10,000 disinformation agents planted everywhere to cover up the supposedly "secret" conspiracy.


And to reference your point of crash forensics, check this link to compare crashsites of 2 similar incidents. The 93 site looks more like back-hoe practice. I don't understand how a passenger plane can vanish into that hole. Oh, and just FYI, I studied private investigation and CSI, did construction and industrial mechanical work for 20 years. I don't drive a desk.
edit on 28-12-2010 by OuttaTime because: (no reason given)


Umm...so what does any of this have to do with the Pentagon attack?
edit on 28-12-2010 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 03:25 PM
link   
The facts are:

* OS says an airliner hit the building yet no footage released shows any such thing.

* Barbara Olsen was said to have made a phone call from the airliner. That has been proven to have been a lie. That call from the airliner never happened as the FBI discovered. The box-cutter theory was developed from her faked phone call.

* 2 Trillion dollars missing, gone vanished. The very next day, 911 happens. In the same locale of the Pentagon where those records as provided to Don Rumsfeld for his press conference stating such were kept.

* The footage released by the government has been tested and analyzed then judged to have manipulated and frames determined missing.

* In the video frames released of this attack there is a very noticeable and un-airliner like "corkscrew" pattern of white smoke that is common with munitions. An airliner of any type does not produce this.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Shouldn't this thread be no "camera footage, no basis of argument? "

Assumptions, get you no where~



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
Shouldn't this thread be no "camera footage, no basis of argument? "

Assumptions, get you no where~


No. There is camera footage. It just hasn't been released. And what was released did not show a plane.

We have never seen any footage of a plane hitting a building when that building - supposedly one of the most secure in the world - was surrounded by cameras and was EXPECTED to be attacked.

That is profoundly weird - and is just one of the countless profoundly weird or simply impossible things about this supposed plane strike - and therefore it's very reasonable to assume that there was no (large jet liner) plane.

But, I suppose, once you have started ignoring impossible coincidence after impossible coincidence and impossible scenario after impossible scenario it gradually gets easier and easier, until you end up believing the OS.
edit on 28-12-2010 by Malcram because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
136
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join