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: 27
136
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Ashyr
 


Dated Sept 12th (quirk)
Bush said he saw the first plane? (confusion)
Silverstein said "pull it"....? (out of context)
Rumsfeld said 'missile' ....? (meant, plane)
Bush said 'explosives' ......? (meant plane)
Commissioner Tim Roemer said "missile"....? (meant plane)
Put Options on AA and UA days before...? (coincidence)
2 Plane caused 3 skyscrapers to fall....? (dunno)
Plane crashed in Shanksville yet scattered over 8 miles...? (dunno)
Plane crashed into Rumsfeld invoices of the 2.3 trillion missing dollars.....? (shhhhhh)



You see my friend, when you can't convince 'em you gotta confuse 'em!!!




posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


And you seem to be confused. We have accomplished our goal.

TPTB



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 06:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Ashyr
 


thats not the pentagons numerics at the bottom. that is someone who put that there
the pentagon security cameras arent labeled impact 4



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by spikey
 


of course they probably thought it was a bomb. it was panic and you cant see an airplane hitting the buiding from behind walls. i bet it felt like an earthquake. these people were stating what they felt not what they saw



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


how do we know you werent friends with all these people? even though
i know 3 people who directly saw the plane hitting the building.

1: Vdot manager at the marriot looking out the window at the pentagon, while shaving
2: a contract plumber who was doing work at the pentagon
3: state trooper who was one of the first responders on scene, who now has health issues because of the jetfuel
burning and other hazardous materials. direct witnesses like this speak volumes.

People who are interviewed years later can remember details they didnt remember before but they can also fabricate.
What credibility do the people you interviewed have? These people were not directly viewing the plane hitting the building.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by lord9
 
Bam! Right in the kisser Dave. How fast can you prop up Ted Olsen. That whole story he's telling smells bad . Do you have the latest info on the phone call that couldn't have happened.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 02:39 PM
link   
American Airlines flight 77 had airphones, although only 5 could be used at one time. Also verizon has good reception in the Washington DC area with the ability to use a cell phone on the plane.
edit on 31-12-2010 by shure because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 





Are all of these magical cameras ALL lined up to view the one side of the building??


Of course not. But most of them ARE lined up to view the one side of the building that does not have an entrance don't you know

edit on 1/1/2011 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Realtruth
 





Now if we have 6 million square feet that is about ONE camera every 6,000 square feet, which I highly doubt, again this in interior only.

I would wager it's more like 1000's


What does the number of cameras inside the building have to do with anything what-so-ever?



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by DIDtm
So, Dave, Im BEG you to show me where I am making such a huge fuss about this? The ball is in your court to make me look foolish and/or a liar.
Cause Im calling you out on your BS.


All right, then. If you say you're NOT doing this, then please have the courtesy of irrefutably separating yourself from the conspiracy mongers who ARE doing this and acknowledge how ridiculous it is to be insinuating impropriety over the remainder of the videos when you don't even know what's on the footage to begin with.

I don't mind retracting my accusations since I don't have any agenda. Will YOU renounce all this "we will only change our minds if we see the video" and abandon this whole video Pentagon bit as being nothing but absurd abject paranoia? For one thing, if the conspiracy mongors refuse to even believe what the eyewitnresses say, then only a fool will believe the conspiracy mongors will ever accept any such video showing the aircraft even if it was released.



My mistake. However, it just furthers along my point.
Cause this is a far cry from a 757.


...yeah, when you're sitting at your teminal and can look up aircraft sillouettes so you can pretend being an expert at everything. To a guy with uncertain aeronautics background looking at an aircraft through binoculars for a few seconds, he saw what he thought he saw. Noentheless he still saw it was a two engined passenger aircraft that hit the Pentagon, not a cruise missile, not a UAW, and not a flying saucer. You're nitpicking out of desperation and we both know it.


I am not saying or implying anything other than the link to the witness's claims YOU provided, have inconsistencies. Some counter others. Some claim completely different things than the OS you so valiantly defend. Im ASKING, which of these testimonies do YOU WANT US to believe?

Its a pretty simple question.


I was hoping that I wouldn't have to go through ever flipping line, but it's obvious you're attempting to snow me by sheer volume and you're counting on my not looking up every single person to verify what they said. If you really want me to show you how badly you're full of it, fine:

The discussion is over the people who were watching what what it was that hit the Pentagon, and the following are NOT eyewitnesses to the passenger jet hitting the Pentagon. They either were inside and didn't see the craft hit, or they were elsewhere and they showed up afterwards. They are eyewitnesses, but not to the impact itself.

John Bowman? He KNEW it was a bomb.
Terry Mitchell? claims the debris was NOT leftover aircraft
Don Perkal? smelled cordite
Gilah Goldsmith? Smelled cordite
Mike Slater? seemed like a bomb went off
Steve DeChario? saw a small hole in the building. No tail. No Wings. Nothing.
Walker E Levy? Saw the nose of the plane come to a rest in the C ring. Crashed through the other walls in order to do so.
Jerry Hanson? He heard a 'loud kathump'. Not what you would expect to hear.
Charles Krohn? saw a jet engine ricochet off the building into an adjacent parking lot. 10 minutes later heard a loud explsion.
Peter Murphy? Heard the loudest noise he ever heard


The following is a list who did see the plane strike. Every single one of these people explicitely saw that it was a large two engined passenger plane that hit the Pentagon, many of them identifying details of flight 77. If you're genuinely arguing over someone identifying they saw a 737 rather than a 757, or that it was white rather than a shiny silver, then I shouldn't have to tell you this is simply petty nitpicking out of desperation-

Steve Anderson? He saw the wings hit the ground in front of the Pentagon.
Mark Bright? He saw the plane hit
Lisa Burgess? She heard two blasts. One large and one smaller.
James Cissell? Claims the plane blurred past him yet saw faces of passengers.
Penny Elgas? Saw the wings disappear INTO the Pentagon. And the tail 'slip' into the Pentagon.
Ken Ford? Saw a 2 engine prop TURBOplane hit through binoculars
Afework Hagos? saw the wings tilting up and down
William LaGasse? saw blinds down in the plane
William Middleton? saw the jet accelerate the last few hundred yards before impact
Tom Hovis? saw the plane coming in from the North
Ryan James? pilot tilted its wings, plane was moving slow
Frank Probst? saw starboard engine hit a low cement wall and blow apart
Noel Sepulveda? saw the plane drop its landing gear. Right engine hit high/ left-hit low.
Jim Sutherland? saw a white 737
Tim Timmerman? saw the plane hit the ground
Steve Patterson? saw a commuter jet crash
Mary Anne Owens? saw left wing clip the helipad. Saw fuselage hit ground and blow up
Mike Dobbs? he didnt HEAR the crash
Vin Narayanan? Pentagon walls held up like a champ. Plane nose curled up.


Then there's THIS list. They are commenting on the C-130 of the Minnesota Air National Guard that was asked by ground controllers to tail flight 77 and report details. This was reported in the 9/11 Commission report so it's hardly "quite curious" when it's already been identified years ago-

Allen Cleveland? Didnt see 757 crash, but saw white cargo plane and then military jet (his testimony is quite curious all together)
Keith Wheelhouse? saw plane similiar to C-130 flying directly above jet plane


So if you're sincerely attempting to tell me you're not just getting this drivel off some damned fool conspiracy web site then I know you're lying through your teeth, 'cause they above all are notorious for attempting to get people all paranoid over this, "mysterious cargo plane above the Pentagon" bit and I know there's no way you'd come up with this yourself.

Keep in mind I'm not here to insult you, or to make you feel bad about yourself. I'm here to point out how you're being swindled by those ridiculous conspiracy web sites and getting you to believe stupid things, and so far,all you've managed to do is prove me right. Did you even know there was a Minnesota air national guard C-130 over the Pentagon at the time of the attack?



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by OuttaTime
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Dave, the trouble I'm seeing is that you repeatedly reference the 'hundred eyewitness accounts' in your own link. I read the testimonies in that link, and found them to be all over the board with their accounts. Some saw 737s, 747s, some saw a white plane, some saw silver, some saw it hit a helicopter, some saw it hit the pentagon, some saw an engine get torn off, some saw it glide in, some saw it yawing, some heard a rumble, some say it was quiet, some say the gear was down, some say the gear was up, some say it bounced off the pentagon wall, etc. Although the accounts are completely inconsistent, there is no question that a craft hit it.


None of the eyewitness accounts refute the fact that it was a large passenger craft that hit the Pentagon, other than the helicopter bit, but this was third person heresay reported by an unidentified bystander, and I know how much of a sticker the conspiracy people are about chain of custody on evidence so I don't accept it either. Bickering over whether person A saw a white plane vs person B seeing a shiny silver plane, or whether the exact model was a Boeing 737 vs a 757, is simply desperate nitpicking.

Sorry, but I don't go for innuendo dropping. It's a cowardly way of making accusations without actually coming out and saying it in the open, and I'm seeing entirely too many conspiracy con artists like Dylan Avery pulling this stunt as it is. Please, let's just cut to the chase and say what you really mean- are you saying these people are all gov't agents spreading disinformation, or are you saying they saw some staged event like holograms for the task of manufacturing live witnesses the same way the no planers are saying about the WTC? If you're not going to accept the account of the eyewitnesses then your alternatives are few and far between.


If it was indeed pitched to the left, then the imprint on the face of the pentagon does not line up. The 'line' of facial impact would have been at a 10-15 degree slant. If an engine was torn off, then it would have been located by other witnesses. But the witnesses who did not see the engine fall off, still saw it impact the pentagon and leave a phantom mark where the engine would have been. I'm not making this up or discrediting. I'm asking. This is not my testimony. It was in your link.


There's no reason why we should expect a cutout sillouette on a wall made of bricks like a Wile E. Coyote cartoon. They're cemented together so when one brick gets pulled away, a bunch of other bricks they're cemented to gets pulled away with it. Plus, the upper sections of wall collapsed afterwards obscuring the impact area. I'm not an architect nor am I a materials engineer, and I'll wager that neither are you. How many aircraft impacts into buildings have you seen that you'd know what to look for and what not to look for in such cases?

It seems to me that rather than looking objectively at the eidence and trying to piece together a rational scenario, the conspiracy people have gotten it into their minds that some sinister secret plot is afoot and they're grasping any any semblance of impropriety so they can scream SMOKING GUN when in actuality what they're looking at has perfectly reasonable explanations...they just don't care what it is. Add ot the fact that there's these danmed fool conspiracy web sites are sowing abject paranoia about the Minnesota Air National guard C-130 as being "a mysterious cargo jet nearby". I'm seeing a snow job, all right, but it's NOT coming from the 9/11 commission report.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by lord9
 
Bam! Right in the kisser Dave. How fast can you prop up Ted Olsen. That whole story he's telling smells bad . Do you have the latest info on the phone call that couldn't have happened.


So then have the cojones to back up your own conspiracy stories and come out and say it, rather than adolescent innuendo dropping. Are you saying Ted Olden is assisting in the cover up of the conspiracy and the murder of his own wife?.

There really is noone you trusters won't slander for the benefit of your conspiracy stories, is there?



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



Add ot the fact that there's these danmed fool conspiracy web sites


You need a new line Dave..
That one and many others are getting old..
Ohh, and it's kinda strange you spend so much time on THIS "danmed fool conspiracy web site"

BTW, still waiting for you to show me where the huge hole is in this pic...
Especially where the wings and 2 x 3500kg engines went through the wall.

www.twf.org...



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



Add ot the fact that there's these danmed fool conspiracy web sites


You need a new line Dave..
That one and many others are getting old..
Ohh, and it's kinda strange you spend so much time on THIS "danmed fool conspiracy web site"

Sorry, but I'm not here to entertain you. I'm here specifically to show you exactly how you're being raped by those damned fool conspiracy web sites spreading lies to get people all paranoid over shadows.. I've already shown how they're spreading lies to get people all paranoid over shadows with their claims of no interceptors were scrambled, all the WTC bomb dogs were withdrawn, no fires in the WTC 7, plus this unnecessary conspiracy mongoring over what hit the Pentagon. It's causing so much unnecessary bickering and finger pointing while con artists like Alex Jones and that French guy are laughing all the way to the bank. Good grief, dude, how can you not see it?

FYI ATS isn't a conspiracy web site. It's a conspiracy discussion forum, and they have no in-house conspiracy they're pushing. If this were a true conspiracy web site I'd have been banned a few weeks after registering from posting material they don't want people to know. I know this becuase I was banned after a few weeks over at the Loose Change forum for posting things they didn't want people to know.


BTW, still waiting for you to show me where the huge hole is in this pic...
Especially where the wings and 2 x 3500kg engines went through the wall.


I already said this was an idiotic post the first time you asked it because not only is the photo taken about a mile away, you deliberately chose a photo the size of a postage stamp and you can't even tell it's the Pentagon, much less see the hole in the Pentagon, so the post hasn't gotten any less idiotic. I shouldn't have to point out that children's games like this is a mark of desperation from having to defend these undefendable conspiracy stories, and only injures your crdibility not mine.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



Add ot the fact that there's these danmed fool conspiracy web sites


You need a new line Dave..
That one and many others are getting old..
Ohh, and it's kinda strange you spend so much time on THIS "danmed fool conspiracy web site"

Sorry, but I'm not here to entertain you. I'm here specifically to show you exactly how you're being raped by those damned fool conspiracy web sites spreading lies to get people all paranoid over shadows.. I've already shown how they're spreading lies to get people all paranoid over shadows with their claims of no interceptors were scrambled, all the WTC bomb dogs were withdrawn, no fires in the WTC 7, plus this unnecessary conspiracy mongoring over what hit the Pentagon. It's causing so much unnecessary bickering and finger pointing while con artists like Alex Jones and that French guy are laughing all the way to the bank. Good grief, dude, how can you not see it?

FYI ATS isn't a conspiracy web site. It's a conspiracy discussion forum, and they have no in-house conspiracy they're pushing. If this were a true conspiracy web site I'd have been banned a few weeks after registering from posting material they don't want people to know. I know this becuase I was banned after a few weeks over at the Loose Change forum for posting things they didn't want people to know.


BTW, still waiting for you to show me where the huge hole is in this pic...
Especially where the wings and 2 x 3500kg engines went through the wall.


I already said this was an idiotic post the first time you asked it because not only is the photo taken about a mile away, you deliberately chose a photo the size of a postage stamp and you can't even tell it's the Pentagon, much less see the hole in the Pentagon, so the post hasn't gotten any less idiotic. I shouldn't have to point out that children's games like this is a mark of desperation from having to defend these undefendable conspiracy stories, and only injures your crdibility not mine.


Just more of the same crap lines from you Dave..
The pic is fine but then I'd say there is NOT pic out there that shows where a boeing 757 with 2 3500kg engines hit the Pentagon..

I'll let you post a pic to show your proof then..
But I bet you pick one from after the wall collapsed..

You are so predictable and simply repeat your same lines over and over without proving anything..

I await YOUR pic..



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 03:42 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


You pretty much post the same crap in every thread. So predictable.

Why do you post here? What's the point? To prove to everyone who disagrees with the 9/11 OS that everything we were told is real?

Who cares? Why do you care? If someone thinks a part of the OS is fishy, or is skeptical of one of the various aspects of the story, why is it necessary for you to be the Chief of Coverup Operations? Go see a movie. Go play an instrument. Go lift some weights. For the love of God dude, find a hobby.

You're pitiful man. You spend your free time on a conspiracy website with the sole purpose of making fun of people and starting senseless arguments. No one here who is against the OS is ever going to listen to your BS and change their minds. I'll admit, your tenacity is admirable.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 




None of the eyewitness accounts refute the fact that it was a large passenger craft that hit the Pentagon, other than the helicopter bit, but this was third person heresay reported by an unidentified bystander, and I know how much of a sticker the conspiracy people are about chain of custody on evidence so I don't accept it either. Bickering over whether person A saw a white plane vs person B seeing a shiny silver plane, or whether the exact model was a Boeing 737 vs a 757, is simply desperate nitpicking.


Desperate nitpicking? The accounts of these people is supposed to be a credible description of the series of events. Yet all the 'witnesses' tell a different story. The only thing they may share is that something hit the pentagon. There is no consistency of the events leading up to the impact. If this were tried in court, the witness testimonies would be questionable. But what people say happened, and what really happened remains to be completely revealed.



are you saying these people are all gov't agents spreading disinformation, or are you saying they saw some staged event like holograms


Grasping? I don't see how I could refer to these testemonies as disinfo agents. I am merely pointing out that the references you blindly push are multiple recollections of the same event, and their recollections are not symmetrical. What one person saw, another did not see. Again, if it went to court, I do not see a perpetuation of credibility. Perhaps you should watch My Cousin Vinny and see how realtime accusations can be skewed by a belief in perception.
Holograms? You certainly are reaching.



There's no reason why we should expect a cutout sillouette on a wall made of bricks like a Wile E. Coyote cartoon. They're cemented together so when one brick gets pulled away, a bunch of other bricks they're cemented to gets pulled away with it. Plus, the upper sections of wall collapsed afterwards obscuring the impact area. I'm not an architect nor am I a materials engineer, and I'll wager that neither are you. How many aircraft impacts into buildings have you seen that you'd know what to look for and what not to look for in such cases?


Dude! If that plane hit the pentagon hard enough to go through 6 rebar reinforced concrete walls, it would have definately done more than scratch the face of the outer wall. Those are facing bricks (thinner than regular brick) and if you study the pics there you will notice that the explosion threw the debris outward, whereas if it was a cutting impact, much of the debris would have been drawn into the building. It's a principle of physics. You don't have to be Stephen Hawking to see that. And if the wings struck the walls there, then how do you explain the complete vaporisation of the plane structure. I've built enough structures to understand their mechanics.



It seems to me that rather than looking objectively at the eidence and trying to piece together a rational scenario, the conspiracy people have gotten it into their minds that some sinister secret plot is afoot and they're grasping any any semblance of impropriety so they can scream SMOKING GUN when in actuality what they're looking at has perfectly reasonable explanations...they just don't care what it is. Add ot the fact that there's these danmed fool conspiracy web sites are sowing abject paranoia about the Minnesota Air National guard C-130 as being "a mysterious cargo jet nearby". I'm seeing a snow job, all right, but it's NOT coming from the 9/11 commission report.


And I could say the same about you. You're not being very objective. You breathe the same inconsistencies as the biased 911 Commission (who didn't even bother to investigate WTC7 BTW). What happened to the 2 witness accounts that claimed they also smelled Cordite? Will you disregard them as eyewitnesses even though they were inside the building? Do you not consider other passenger plane pilots who say that maneuver is nearly impossible to fly? What about the thousands of engineers and pilots who demand a reinvestigation of the evidence? Is it coincedence that the 911 events dictate that our own govt now evesdrop on US even though 'it was muslims' that pulled this off? Is it still a mystery why our own state dept refuse to investigate where Mohammed Atta got his $100,000 to pay for this? Seems to me that you are the one cuddling up with those 'damned fool conspiracy' websites, going by your signature.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 
Did you mis-spell the name on purpose? His story smells Dave, so yes I'm calling him a liar. As far as your tenacity, as a previous poster mentioned, I on the other hand would call you evil.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by lord9
 
Bam! Right in the kisser Dave. How fast can you prop up Ted Olsen. That whole story he's telling smells bad . Do you have the latest info on the phone call that couldn't have happened.


Nothing about Ted Olson's account "smells bad ".

Do you realise that Ted Olson didn't take the calls from his wife in the first instance ? A Dept of Justice secretary called Lori Keyton did and she spoke to the FBI about it on 9/11 itself. This is the FBI record :-

intelfiles.egoplex.com...

So, as well as accusing the man of being complicit in his wife's death, are you alleging that Lori Keyton was "in on it " .



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by OuttaTime
 





Dude! If that plane hit the pentagon hard enough to go through 6 rebar reinforced concrete walls, it would have definately done more than scratch the face of the outer wall. Those are facing bricks (thinner than regular brick) and if you study the pics there you will notice that the explosion threw the debris outward, whereas if it was a cutting impact, much of the debris would have been drawn into the building. It's a principle of physics. You don't have to be Stephen Hawking to see that. And if the wings struck the walls there, then how do you explain the complete vaporisation of the plane structure. I've built enough structures to understand their mechanics.


Dude! The plane went through ONE reinforced wall. The outer wall. The outer three rings on the Pentagon are not "separate" on the first floor. And if you crash an airliner into an object, the explosion is going to send debris in ALL directions. But, you were right in the statement that 'much of the debris would have been drawn into the building'.....because it was.




top topics



 
136
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join