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: 25
136
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by spikey
 



Covering up 'lost' $2.3 Trillion, the evidence of which was at the *exact* location in the Pentagon that was hit


It was in the Navy Command Center's Weather Office?


No, it was in the Army financial management and audit centre...

911caper.com...


I have interviewed an Army auditor from Ft. Monmouth, New Jersey, who was on temporary duty assignment at the Pentagon before, on and after 9/11. He was in the Army financial management spaces only minutes before the Pentagon explosion on the morning of 9/11. He had just returned to his temporary office on the ground floor of the adjacent south side of the Pentagon by the cafeteria when he heard an explosion and felt the building shake. Immediately afterwards, he said, hundreds of panicked Pentagon personnel ran by him down the corridor just outside his office and out the South Entrance, yelling “Bombs!” and “A bomb went off!” The witness has requested that his name not be used in this summary, but is willing to testify to a grand jury or independent official investigation. This Army financial management/audit area is part of, or contiguous to, the Army personnel offices, which was one of two main west section offices heavily destroyed in the Pentagon attack, the other being the Naval Command Center.


I understand there was also a cafeteria nearby too, although that didn't hold the records of who got their dirty little mitts on $2.3 Trillion, so i doubt that was the intended target either!




posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 10:03 AM
link   
I'm outta here...this is a pointless merry-go-round.

Cheers all.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by spikey
 


I'm on your side but I would think since they've had since the PNAC was founded (circa 1997) or perhaps even scarier, Operation Northwood (circa 1962) they've had ample time to get all their I's dotted and T's crossed.
This event was finely executed no matter WHO launched it (although it was America-Britain-Israel in my opinion) so if it hasn't (publicly) caught up with them yet chances are they will continue to live the life of luxury down in Paraguay and never see the darkness of a prison cell.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


"They would have to shoot down pretty much EVERY passenger plane in the U.S.A. Sherlock..."

They should only intercept FIRST and then shoot (if needed) every plane with transponder off and that is not every plane in USA in air at that moment ,and you don't need to be Sherlock to know this.
edit on 29-12-2010 by xavi1000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


I know you are mate, and i appreciate it.

OH yes, i know about Bush buying up hundreds of thousands of acres of Paraguay a couple of years ago..near the end of WWII, didn't a lot of the Nazi's bugger off to South America too?

Popular choice of retirement destinations for the dog crap of humanity it seems.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


Good assumption, and more evidence of this is the comparison of the actual incidents to the movie "Executive Decision." Isn't it ironic that in the movie the main terrorist leader stated that they would send the plane into the White House, but in reality the only plane that did not make it was flight 93? Again look at the evidence before you. If a jet plane flying at low altitude (as stated by several witnesses) if shot down, wouldn't it leave a DIRECTIONAL CRATER instead of a VERTICAL CRATER? Why did they have to dig the plane out of the ground. answer: it was in a state of DERESOLUTION.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by xavi1000
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


"They would have to shoot down pretty much EVERY passenger plane in the U.S.A. Sherlock..."

They should only intercept FIRST and then shoot (if needed) every plane with transponder off and that is not every plane in USA in air at that moment ,and you don't need to be Sherlock to know this.
edit on 29-12-2010 by xavi1000 because: (no reason given)


But of course, as luck would have it, they were playing a military game. Now what are the odds?

There is so much more that went on that day, than we were told, that it would have you scratching your head for years!!!

Here, take a look-see:


It's clear the media is complicit in this operation and/or manipulated by the perpetrators so to accept what they report out of hand and keep turning back to the previously published eyewitness accounts as valid evidence can only push us farther from the truth.

Here we lift the veil of media deception to give you an inside look at how the operation was carried out.

Citizen Investigation Team presents:

Google Video Link



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by DIDtm
 

I have no evidence nor have I ever made that claim. I only stated that 56 cameras were not viewed by her.
Not sure why you continually put words in other people's mouths. Oh..wait...yes I do.


Oh, I get it now. You're playing the "plausible deniability' game, where you drop sinister sounding innuendo all over the place to make accusations without actually coming out and saying them. This way, when you paint yourself into a corner you can weasel out of it by claiming you never said it. Sorry, but I'm immune to such games.

YOU...yes, YOU...are making much ado about all these unreleased videos and we both know you're doing it becuase becuase you imagine they show something they don't want to reveal. It's repeatedly being proven the OTHER major reason why they're not being released is that they don't show anything worthwhile. Ergo, it's your responsibility to prove that isn't the case. If you can't do it then your "I want to see the videos" bit is nothing but a childish temper tantrum over not wanting to admit your conspiracy stories are wrong.


And which ones are we to believe?


Good grief, stop the game playing already. I see right away you're manipulating and distorting what people saw for your own porposes. You say...

"Ken Ford? Saw a 2 engine prop plane hit through binoculars"

But what he *really* said, and I posted the link so I know you've seen it, was...

"Ken Ford : One eyewitness, State Department employee Ken Ford, said he watched from the 15th floor of the State Department Annex, just across the Potomac River from the Pentagon. We were watching the airport through binoculars, Ford said, referring to Reagan National Airport, a short distance away. The plane was a two-engine turbo prop that flew up the river from National. Then it turned back toward the Pentagon. We thought it had been waved off and then it hit the building. "

He didn't say a 2 engine prop plane. He said a 2 engine TURBOPROP plane. Here's what a turboprop plane looks like..

Typical turboprop plane

...and here's what a Boeing 757-200 series passenger jet looks like...

Boeing 757-200 series passenger jet

I shouldn't have to tell you that arguing over the slight differences in their sillouettes is being frivolous, particularly when he would only have seen it for several seconds. I'm not going to waste my time on the remaining objections (I.E. people didn't see the actual crash itself) becuase it's patently obvious that you're pulling the exact stunt here too- when the plane banked down toward the Pentagon as it slipped out of view, the thing didn't just vanish into a rift in the space-time continuum. Like it or not, eyewitnesses specifically saw that it was a passenger jet that hit the Pentagon, and you cannot deny this regardless of how desperately you try.

I will ask again- which one of those damned fool conspiracy web sites are you getting this crap from? You and I both know you're not coming up with this stuff on your own.

edit on 29-12-2010 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   
if you want more info on this go to: 911timeline.net...



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by dubiousone
Why? Gee, Dave, is your analytical wizardry failing you during this mid-holiday week? Too much egg nog perhaps?

It's because they aren't sitting on a pile of videos saying, "You don't need to see them, just trust me, your super trustworthy gub'mint agent, when I tell you they don't show nuttin', nuttin' at all, so don't worry your pretty little heads about nuttin', nuttin' at all!"


...and this cute little game of yours overrides the fact that over a hundred eyewitnesses specifically saw that it was a passenger jet that hit the Pentagon HOW, exactly?



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


What about this ? Beyond any reasonable doubt .




posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   
You know what this is about...and why they're not producing these tapes....the only piece of evidence that is tangible ? It's to keep us bickering. While we debate this 'Inside Job' verse 'Official Story' for almost 10 years now .....the perpetrators are sitting back enjoying the show and don't have to do squat. The Trusters are doing it for them!

You see, if they keep us in a perpetual state of division we're easier to control. Two small sides are better than one big gigantic mob! Just like they do with Republican or Democrat! But now we're further divided into: Truth or Trust!

So keep it up Trusters. You really should ask for a bail-out, stimulus package or some fringe benefit from Washington because after all, you're doing all their public relation/damage control work for them and...... should be compensated at some point.

We on the other hand, get put on the Homeland Security terrorist-watch list!

Oh what a wonderful world we live in!



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by xavi1000
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


What about this ? Beyond any reasonable doubt .




That documentary should be mandated in high school just like the book "1984" was mandatory to read when I was a youngin'.

The thing is Trusters.........there are probably an equal amount of witnesses claiming to see a White Plane and/or traveling on the NORTH side of Columbia than you have witnesses who, corroborate the OS.

So it's not just a small group of us who are anti-government and who just love to drum up controversy. This problem will NOT go away because there are too many overwhelming contradictions that need to be addressed!


But like I said above, as long as the government has you Trusters, they don't have to do anything right now.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


There is only one side to this event and that is the truth of what really happened.
Since I don't believe the OS, TRUTH WINS.

Very informative and well written post by the OP. Star and Flag.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by xavi1000
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


What about this ? Beyond any reasonable doubt .




I am truly amazed that people still bring up CIT's stuff. What is it supposed to prove ? That people had different perceptions of the flight path of a jetliner speeding into the Pentagon ?

The central plank of CIT's theory, that the plane overflew the Pentagon, continues to be utterly unsupported.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by TETRA.X
 
Thanks, Tetra. 25 pages and 'they' have not been able to derail this thread. Thanks to all of you other truthers for standing firm in your beliefs. The goon squad did all they could to derail us but impartial reasoning has prevailed. Dave's "over a hundred eyewitnesses" doesn't hold water against others who saw something quite different. I've come to the conclusion that 'they' are not as powerful as I had feared. The reason we'll win in the end is because the story they are defending is indefensible. I feel sorry for the trusters. What a dull, grey existence they must lead.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien
You know what this is about...and why they're not producing these tapes....the only piece of evidence that is tangible ? It's to keep us bickering. While we debate this 'Inside Job' verse 'Official Story' for almost 10 years now .....the perpetrators are sitting back enjoying the show and don't have to do squat. The Trusters are doing it for them!



I agree with this, 100%. The trusters are going to these damned fool conspiracy web sites being run by the likes of Dylan Avery and Alex Jones, and they explicitly trust everything those con artists are shovelling out. They then come to these boards and regurgitate drivel like, "no interceptors were scrambled, all the WTC bomb dogs were withdrawn, there were no fires in WTC 7", etc that can be debunked in a thirty second google search.

Of COURSE there's going to be needless bickering. How can there not be needless bickering when the trusters insist eyewitnesses are secret disinfo agents, wreckage was planted, black boxes were manufactured, video is manipulated, etc etc etc and yet claims of lasers from outer space sound perfectly logical and reasonable to them? Heck, the trusters are all but getting into fistfights among themselves over what the "blatantly a conspiracy" even is, with the controlled demolitions conspiracies vs the no planes conspiracies. This isn't research. This is a Rorschach test.

Stop going to Prison Planet, people! I'm still waiting for this "imminent war with Iran" they claimed Bush was going to instigate.


So keep it up Trusters. You really should ask for a bail-out, stimulus package or some fringe benefit from Washington because after all, you're doing all their public relation/damage control work for them and...... should be compensated at some point.


I doubt the trusters will do this becuase they'll no doubt think THAT is part of some secret sinister conspiracy to take over the world, too. Isn't Alex Jones trying to convince people that the gov't is planting RFID chips in our money?



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by TETRA.X
 
Thanks, Tetra. 25 pages and 'they' have not been able to derail this thread. Thanks to all of you other truthers for standing firm in your beliefs. The goon squad did all they could to derail us but impartial reasoning has prevailed. Dave's "over a hundred eyewitnesses" doesn't hold water against others who saw something quite different.


Give me an example of this, please, because up until now, you trusters who explicitely trust everything Dylan Avery and Alex Jones are shoveling out have either deliberately misrepresented the eyewitness accounts into making them appear they're saying things they're not, or, you simply say, "they're a pack of lies" before running away giggling. I'll make it easy for you. Here's a partial eyewitness testimony from Penny Elgas, an FDIC worker who was out on the highway next to the Pentagon as the plane passed right in front of her:

"Traffic was at a standstill. I heard a rumble, looked out my driver's side window and realized that I was looking at the nose of an airplane coming straight at us from over the road (Columbia Pike) that runs perpendicular to the road I was on. The plane just appeared there- very low in the air, to the side of (and not much above) the CITGO gas station that I never knew was there. My first thought was "Oh My God, this must be World War III!" In that split second, my brain flooded with adrenaline and I watched everything play out in ultra slow motion, I saw the plane coming in slow motion toward my car and then it banked in the slightest turn in front of me, toward the heliport. In the nano-second that the plane was directly over the cars in front of my car, the plane seemed to be not more than 80 feet off the ground and about 4-5 car lengths in front of me. It was far enough in front of me that I saw the end of the wing closest to me and the underside of the other wing as that other wing rocked slightly toward the ground. I remember recognizing it as an American Airlines plane -- I could see the windows and the color stripes. And I remember thinking that it was just like planes in which I had flown many times but at that point it never occurred to me that this might be a plane with passengers. In my adrenaline-filled state of mind, I was overcome by my visual senses. The day had started out beautiful and sunny and I had driven to work with my car's sunroof open. I believe that I may have also had one or more car windows open because the traffic wasn't moving anyway. At the second that I saw the plane, my visual senses took over completely and I did not hear or feel anything -- not the roar of the plane, or wind force, or impact sounds. The plane seemed to be floating as if it were a paper glider and I watched in horror as it gently rocked and slowly glided straight into the Pentagon. At the point where the fuselage hit the wall, it seemed to simply melt into the building. I saw a smoke ring surround the fuselage as it made contact with the wall. It appeared as a smoke ring that encircled the fuselage at the point of contact and it seemed to be several feet thick. I later realized that it was probably the rubble of churning bits of the plane and concrete. The churning smoke ring started at the top of the fuselage and simultaneously wrapped down both the right and left sides of the fuselage to the underside, where the coiling rings crossed over each other and then coiled back up to the top. Then it started over again -- only this next time, I also saw fire, glowing fire in the smoke ring. At that point, the wings disappeared into the Pentagon. And then I saw an explosion and watched the tail of the plane slip into the building. It was here that I closed my eyes for a moment and when I looked back, the entire area was awash in thick black smoke."


Here's a link to the full testimony. Unlike the slippery, shadowy way you trusters seem to hallucinate all the conspirators operate, she's quite out in the open with what she saw-

Testimony of Penny Elgas

So go ahead, accuse Penny Elgas of being a secret gov't disinformation agent. I double dog dare you. In fact I TRIPLE dog dare you to contact her directly and accuse her to her face of being a secret gov't disinformation agent- she sits on the FDIC board in Washington, DC. A google search on her name reveals her telephone number over at the FDIC (which I won't post here becuase it's an ATS TOS violation).

It's one thing for you trusters to have great fun and slander honest people for the benefit of your conspiracy mongoring agenda, but it's another thing entirely to slander them directly to their face. You really have no credibility.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I dont think the OP is making the case that there was no aircraft, his case is that it was an military drone rather than an airliner that strucked the Pentagon. So in the context of the opening post of this thread the testimony you provited is not disputed. Also there are ways to word an argument less venomously. That isnt directed at you exclusively.
edit on 29-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1


I am truly amazed that people still bring up CIT's stuff. What is it supposed to prove ? That people had different perceptions of the flight path of a jetliner speeding into the Pentagon ?

The central plank of CIT's theory, that the plane overflew the Pentagon, continues to be utterly unsupported.



At the risk of getting my Truther-arse handed back to me on a silver-platter, this is the one area I too have trouble assimilating a cohesive scenario.
I don't quite see the entire implication and/or purpose.

Furthermore, I don't see why this would've been necessary. Why make things more complicated? Why stage lamp posts being hit? Why not just have the missile (and yes, it was a missile in my opinion) HIT its target?

I do believe these people saw A plane north of Columbia. I do understand the OS is the plane came straight down from the south-side of Columbia.
But now I ask.............why?

Why not just put/make the plane (that carried the missile) on ONE side of the road (like it did) and just......call it a day?

Any TRUTHER (no Trusters please) care to explain this to me please?

Thanks

edit on 29-12-2010 by Human_Alien because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
136
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join