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: 30
136
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by xavi1000
reply to post by hooper
 


English is not my first language .
You are quoting half of my post.
Again twisting and lying.


You specifically asked for proof that something does NOT exist. That is proving a negative.

Let me ask you to prove the tapes DO exist.




posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 

To believe that inside or outside of Penthagon there is no surveilance cameras is ignorance beyond any imagination.

Prove that the Sun exist

edit on 5-1-2011 by xavi1000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by xavi1000
 



To believe that inside or outside of Penthagon there is no surveilance cameras is ignorance beyond any imagination.


"Believe" is not "prove". It is almost the opposite. Again, there is no proof that the "tapes" exist. Period. There is no proof that the cameras exist.


Prove that the Sun exist


Go outside, during the daylight hours. Look up. See the brightest thing in the sky? I call it the Sun, you are more than welcome to call it anything you want. Except non-existant.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Go in Penthagon , look inside ,look outside ,look around ,you will see hundred of cameras .Period.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by xavi1000
reply to post by hooper
 


Go in Penthagon , look inside ,look outside ,look around ,you will see hundred of cameras .Period.


And? How does that prove that on September 11, 2001 there was one pointed and recording the approach and impact of Flight 77?

Are you saying that every square foot of property, inside and outside of the Pentagon, is under constant recorded electronic surveillance?



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 

No, I'm not saying that , Just to release all the tapes from 8:00 am -10:00 am 9/11/2001 no matter they catch the plane or they not catch anything.Clear ?





edit on 5-1-2011 by xavi1000 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-1-2011 by xavi1000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by xavi1000
 


Uh, no its not clear. How does that action resolve anything? If there is no recording of the approach and impact then you'll just claim cover up again.

Hey, I didn't dig you into this hole - talk to your fellow conspiracist. They have uniformly dismissed all evidence that contradcits there personal conspiracy as "disinfo" so what would anyone bother? If they release a tape and it shows Flight 77 clearly impacting the Pentagon then it will be dismissed as fake.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


For 100th time : I'm not making assumptions the tapes are fake or not fake or no plane bla bla.... .Just release darn tapes !! How is not clear that to you ?

I'm thinking which part of Rules of Disinformation you apply ? maybe number 9 ?

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.



www.911truth.org...


edit on 5-1-2011 by xavi1000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by xavi1000
 


They've already said they released all the tapes relative to 9/11, Flight 77, the impact, etc. In a court affadavit. By demanding to review all Pentagon recordings for that date you are calling them liars. There is no getting away from that. You, by your demand are accusing someone of perjury.

So don't try and play innocent. The question was asked, to a court, in writing, and response given accordingly. You are saying that response is a lie.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


No, it's not an accusation to ask someone to provide all the tapes.

It's simply allowing for the fact that people do sometimes lie or distort the facts.

It's an acknowledgment that it's possible that "they" may have lied, not an insistence that they have.

It's an insistence that "they" are no better than anyone else, are capable of lying or being deceptive and that only full access to all evidence can establish the truth.

You'd prefer we just trust them because they're supposedly so upstanding?

If they have told the whole truth then releasing all the tapes and all evidence will establish that.
edit on 5-1-2011 by Malcram because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Yes , they are liars

Another camera from Navy Anex




posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 



No, it's not an accusation to ask someone to provide all the tapes.

It's simply allowing for the fact that people do sometimes lie or distort the facts.


So, you're accusing them of lying.

That's the basis of your conspiracy - everyone is lying.

And I guess that should be the reason for a new investigation - because everyone is lying because what they are saying contradicts your conspiracy.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Malcram
 



No, it's not an accusation to ask someone to provide all the tapes.

It's simply allowing for the fact that people do sometimes lie or distort the facts.


So, you're accusing them of lying.


Um, no. Read what I actually said,

I think it's possible that they have lied. It's possible for anyone to lie. Releasing all the tapes may help to establish their honesty - if they show nothing of interest - at least as far as their statement that the tapes showed no plane. Of course, then we still have the very peculiar situation of a jetliner supposedly hitting the Pentagon and no camera capturing it, at any point.

How come you don't understand the difference between stating something as a possibility and stating it as a certainty?
edit on 5-1-2011 by Malcram because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 



How come you don't understand the difference between stating something as a possibility and stating it as a certainty?


Because your hypothetical is not being presented in a vacuum without any predecessor activity. They were asked the specific question - by a court of law and respondes, in writing to the specific question saying, and I am paraphrasing here, "We looked at all the tapes and here are the ones that show anything relative to the approach and impact of Flight 77".

Now you want to look at all the same tapes because you think they MAY BE lying. Well, spin it any way you want, you are accusing them of lying. That is the basis of your entire argument. Everyone who says something that contradcits your POV is lying.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by xavi1000
 


Proof?

Besides the word "camera" photoshopped onto the photo?

Proof it was pointed at the Pentagon impact point?

Proof that it was connected to a recording device?

Proof that the recording devices were active?



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by xavi1000
 



So, you're accusing them of lying.

That's the basis of your conspiracy - everyone is lying.

And I guess that should be the reason for a new investigation - because everyone is lying because what they are saying contradicts your conspiracy.


If the wikileaks have proven one thing for sure It's that the Government LIES..
Cable after cable tells a different reality to situations as opposed to what is told to the public..

The Pentagon and all important building, do NOT make public their security measures..
That would be telling would be criminals way too much info..

But one thing I'd say is fair to assume is that that side of the building would be expected to have serious CCTV resources due to the location of the Helipad..
Surely you'd agree with that...



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


hahahhahahhahahhahahahhaha
especially for the last two remarks ...yes they are not connected ..they are there for design and better looking of Navy Inex ..tnx for laughing me


Another Camera

View from Sheraton Hotel



New Camera



i14.photobucket.com...



This is taken from the room. The importance of this is that the camera would have been nearly the closest one and would certainly have been able to confirm or deny what all of the eyewitnesses on Columbia Pike and the CITGO station told us.

But it was mysteriously removed!



And tnx again for laugh



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



But one thing I'd say is fair to assume is that that side of the building would be expected to have serious CCTV resources due to the location of the Helipad..
Surely you'd agree with that...


Why? It was a helipad. Helicopters landed there, there was a tower operator. Why would they have serious CCTV facilities? What do you think CCTV's are for? Also, do you assume that all CCTV's are connected to recording devices?

Sorry, simply repeating over and over and over that it just HAD to, doesn't make it true.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by xavi1000
 



especially for the last two remarks ...yes they are not connected ..they are there for design and better looking of Navy Inex ..tnx for laughing me

Another Camera

View from Sheraton Hotel

But it was mysteriously removed!

And tnx again for laugh


So, basically, you have nothing. A camera pointed at the ground in front of the entrance to a hotel and some point on a roof were you THINK there may have been a camera.

LET THE INVESTIGATION BEGIN!!!




posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by backinblack
 



But one thing I'd say is fair to assume is that that side of the building would be expected to have serious CCTV resources due to the location of the Helipad..
Surely you'd agree with that...


Why? It was a helipad. Helicopters landed there, there was a tower operator. Why would they have serious CCTV facilities? What do you think CCTV's are for? Also, do you assume that all CCTV's are connected to recording devices?

Sorry, simply repeating over and over and over that it just HAD to, doesn't make it true.


No one except the OS disciples would assume something so silly..
The helipad is a very important security area with politicians, military and other high ranking officials coming and going at all hours..
I have NO doubt it would be a HIGH security area with increased monitoring...



new topics

top topics



 
136
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join