Pentagon - No camera footage = No plane. A reasonable assumption.

page: 3
136
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 07:32 AM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 



Typically during an incident the government does provide some form of video or at least photographic proof of what it claims relating to that specific event/incident.


Can you mathematically prove this statement? Can you provide proof for the word "typical"? And actually, in my lengthy experience random events such as plane crashes are very rarely ever caught on video. Just think about the number of plane crashes in the last 20 years vs. the video footage of those crashes.

I think this line of reasoning is seriously flawed.




posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


I am with you on these two. Mostly the pentagon. How simple would it be to release pictures of the plane? They have to exist. The most secure building in the US. I have wired houses for cameras that were better protected than this. I could see someone walking up through the yard. Yet a passenger jet is able to sneak through the defenses. The fact that we haven't seen any plane leads any person with a brain to suspect, perhaps there is no plane?

And a plausible theory as to why the need to lie about flight 93 is the fabricated story about the cell phone call and the associated story of passengers revolting was the first lie. It would be hard to counter that with the truth of a shoot down without revealing that they were very comfortable telling lies about that day. Might as well stick to the original lie. For proof of that, watch any 6 year old try to convince you they had nothing to do with the broken _



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 07:54 AM
link   
this post is not really here.

it's just your imagination. Like the plane at the pentagon.
edit on 26-12-2010 by network dude because: double post



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 07:56 AM
link   
We can stop making new posts on 911 now. We know the elites did it, they know that we know. We have been filling the whole internet up with it to the point that the internet can barely fit any more. There is more than sufficient evidence all over the internet to make the point. We have been begging for footage and proof from the elites for 10 years...they are not going to hand it over. I am so tired of seeing new posts on an old dead beaten horse.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


mike.....you're smarter than this....and by this late in the game, surely you are aware the majority of your "assertions" are completely bogus, they are without merit, and there is a mountain of evidence that refute them. Not to mention, the old "claim" of the painted-up cruise missile LONG AGO shown to be a hoaxed, photoshopped concoction.

Here, let's see how your approach to this topic wold play, in similar instances...using your title:

USAir 427 - No camera footage = No plane. A reasonable assumption

  • -- On September 8, 1994, USAir flight 427, a regularly scheduled passenger flight from Chicago O'Hare, Illinois, to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania airports crashed without warning, and inexplicably, during its maneuver for landing approach. The Boeing 737-300 model jet, FAA registration N513AU, had operated without incident up until the final moments. There were no "Mayday" calls from the cockpit...only one transmission of (possibly) unknown origin, at time 19:07:15.0 ---"four twenty seven emergency". Of course, that could have been added, later, using "voice morphing" technology. All onboard were killed; the impact was non-survivable.

    There is no camera footage WHATSOEVER of this event. Is it, therefore, a "reasonable" assumption that it did not happen?? What went down outside Pittsburgh that evening? Why were intact human bodies not seen at the crash site?



    Or. perhaps you'll like this one better?:

    Iranian plane crash -- No camera footage = No plane. A reasonable assumption

  • -- On December 6, 2005, an Iranian Air Force military transport plane, a C-130 "Hercules", crashed into a building shortly after take off, in Tehran. It happened to be carrying "dozens of journalists (actual number....68!)"!! And yet!!! No footage of this crash, into a large apartment building, in a large and (one would assume) heavily surveilled city like Tehran, Iran! What are they trying to "cover up"?? Did they shoot a missile into this building, and call it a "plane crash" as a distraction? Had they already taken those journalists away secretly, to imprison and torture them, and needed to cover their "disappearance" by faking a "plane" crash??

    One can only make a "reasonable assumption" based on the lack of video evidence of the actual airplane, and its impact. Right??

    There is even the "smoking gun"...a photo of the "crash site"....suspiciously lacking any large airplane parts, no tail, no wings, no seats, no luggage, no bodies........



    (I could have gone on like this, for a half-dozen or more similar examples. Only to the limits of my imagination and creative writing skills....WHICH is pretty much what the majority of these nonsense "9/11 conspiracy" threads contain......).


















    edit on 26 December 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



  • posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 07:59 AM
    link   
    This is quite an imagination you have right here!

    This entire theory that you have put forth has been debunked. Sorry.

    "No camera, no footage, blah blah blah..."

    The camera is a standard camera used by government and businesses around the globe. It is only taking shots at 1 second intervals. The plane was moving entirely too fast to be caught on film with the lapse in the film! Common sense right?

    How do you INSULT, the people who lost their families and there loived ones in the attack?
    How do you sit there and say that everyone who saw the planes flying into the Pentagon, Shenkville, and New York; how do you say they are liars?! You Sir, sicken me.

    Little factoid for you. Do you realize you have been caught up in the terrorists OWN DISINFO campaign? If they convince enough people that this was an act of our government, they win by getting the public to harras the gov about the wars we are in! It is a Pysch Ops run by Al-Qada!

    Inj short though, yes, our government can be pretty darn evil! BUT, to say they would attack their own people is just disgusting! I don't know... It just seems that this whole truther movement has LOST steam over the past few years. You guys are nuts and need medication in my opinion......



    posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 08:00 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by Alfie1
    reply to post by mikelee
     


    No, your assumption is not reasonable. Extend it to the wider criminal world. Are you seriously saying that no-one could be convicted of a crime if there is no photographic evidence ?


    if there were 15 cameras pointed at the scene of the crime, and the perp held the tapes, would it not be safe to say that something is being hidden?



    posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 08:02 AM
    link   
    A simple observation? Usually if there is no evidence of something that was a real event, that means absolutely there is some visual evidence.

    Like us being told our skies are protected. Yet, where were those fighters on 911? Standing down. They absolutely were there as promised...but were not in the sky over our most important places...because they were not IN the air.

    When evidence is denied...usually that means there is evidence. Aliens, Bigfoot, radio transmissions from the cockpits on 911. Most likely all three of the above exist.

    Because those holding the evidence says there isnt any....usually that is a good indication....that there IS evidence.
    edit on 06-10-2010 by mysterioustranger because: review



    posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 08:05 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by NeverApologize


    The camera


    no, I am sorry, that is completely false. There was not "the camera" there was many cameras. Different angles. Where are their pictures? I know you don't know, but that is what we would like to see to shut down this conspiracy. It's so simple. Prove a plane was there and you have silenced almost half of most arguments. Most would be willing to accept the 93 shoot down and why it was lied about.



    posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 08:09 AM
    link   
    reply to post by Alfie1
     


    They saw a plane but I don't remember if they specified anything else about it. Pretty much no one saw the direct impact though.

    I was just pointing out one of many inconsistencies with the official story. The cops and 10 other people swore that the plane came from a different direction than stated in the OS (a direction that doesn't go anywhere near the downed light poles).

    They were interviewed at a gas station where it originally happened, and pointed to exactly where they saw the plane. Not on course with the OS. Those accounts prove to me that the OS is wrong in some fashion. If they have 85 videos of it happening, they should surely know the correct flight path.

    It just seems fishy and that maybe they are skewing things to fit some sort of agenda. I won't be going into this topic in depth again, but it just adds one on to the hundreds of other mysterious things that happened that day.



    posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 08:10 AM
    link   
    reply to post by weedwhacker
     

    Weedwacker, you are smarter than this. If one of those planes crashed in front of multiple cameras taking constant footage and recording it to tape or hard drive, wouldn't you think that perhaps there would be some footage of the crash? We aren't talking about a rural area here, we are talking about the Pentagon Lawn. The front of the building. The outside structure of the most secure building in the US. You disappoint me.



    posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 08:13 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by network dude

    Originally posted by Alfie1
    reply to post by mikelee
     


    No, your assumption is not reasonable. Extend it to the wider criminal world. Are you seriously saying that no-one could be convicted of a crime if there is no photographic evidence ?


    if there were 15 cameras pointed at the scene of the crime, and the perp held the tapes, would it not be safe to say that something is being hidden?


    And your evidence for 15 cameras being pointed at a blank wall is what exactly ?

    Do you not suppose that perps capable of faking radar, air traffic contol, flight data recorder, body parts, plane parts etc would be capable of faking up a bit of video ?



    posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 08:15 AM
    link   
    reply to post by network dude
     


    Truther = Traitor.
    Hang all traitors, no?



    posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 08:17 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by jessejamesxx
    reply to post by Alfie1
     


    They saw a plane but I don't remember if they specified anything else about it. Pretty much no one saw the direct impact though.

    I was just pointing out one of many inconsistencies with the official story. The cops and 10 other people swore that the plane came from a different direction than stated in the OS (a direction that doesn't go anywhere near the downed light poles).

    They were interviewed at a gas station where it originally happened, and pointed to exactly where they saw the plane. Not on course with the OS. Those accounts prove to me that the OS is wrong in some fashion. If they have 85 videos of it happening, they should surely know the correct flight path.

    It just seems fishy and that maybe they are skewing things to fit some sort of agenda. I won't be going into this topic in depth again, but it just adds one on to the hundreds of other mysterious things that happened that day.


    I am sorry but I think you are being disingenous. If you know about the " 2 cops " surely you know they are both emphatic the plane crashed into the Pentagon ?



    posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 08:21 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by NeverApologize
    reply to post by network dude
     


    Truther = Traitor.
    Hang all traitors, no?


    no,

    not willing to ask questions = bonehead

    but that's just my opinion.



    posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 08:24 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by Alfie1

    And your evidence for 15 cameras being pointed at a blank wall is what exactly ?

    Do you not suppose that perps capable of faking radar, air traffic contol, flight data recorder, body parts, plane parts etc would be capable of faking up a bit of video ?


    I don't have any factual number of cameras at the pentagon. I just have to believe that there were more than 1.

    And yes, they would be perfectly capable of faking the video. But apparently not smart enough to do that. Instead, they are withholding the only evidence that would prove their side. Do you not see how simple this fix for this is?



    posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 08:31 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by mikelee
    Flight 93 was going to the White house which is why it was shot down. If you align a simple ruler on it''s path after it turned it aligns perfectly with the White house. Secret Service interrupted am VHF communications that day and told those pilots to "protect the house at all cost". Meaning the White House. Flight 93 was shot down without a doubt, they couldn't let the WH get hit regardless if the President was there or not.



    posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 08:31 AM
    link   
    reply to post by Alfie1
     


    I wasn't implying that they didn't believe the official story, they had no idea that they were negating it. They were shocked when they were told the official story's flight path.

    I don't think you understand what I was trying to say. That's ok though.



    posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 08:45 AM
    link   
    I have serious doubts about the Pentagon being hit by a plane.

    Even if they did NOW release a video showing a plane hit he Pentagon, I wouldn't accept it as conclusive, for the same reason that videos showing alleged UFO craft are never accepted by all in the UFO forum, no matter how clear they are - because images can be faked, and faked well.

    They had their chance to release the supposed images of a plane strike in the days after 9/11. Their failure to do so is monumentally suspicious.

    edit on 26-12-2010 by Malcram because: (no reason given)



    posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 08:49 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by backinblack
    And yet not one pic..
    Amazing huh...

    Considering how many people actually had cameras out and ready pointed at the Pentagon at that exact second (probably not many if any at all) .... the speed the airplane was coming in and the very low altitude it was flying at, not to mention the complete shock and surprise that people were in who saw it ... it would have been next to impossible to get a picture.

    A picture under these conditions would have been a miracle.

    Bottom line ... eyewitness' all over the city say it was a plane.
    Ask a cabbie in town who was driving that day .. etc.
    edit on 12/26/2010 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)





    new topics
    top topics
     
    136
    << 1  2    4  5  6 >>

    log in

    join