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: 31
136
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
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.


How very dishonest of you. Please don't put words in my mouth and misrepresent my position.

I am saying that they MAY be lying. I am "accusing" them of being human and capable of deception. They MAY have committed perjury. It's POSSIBLE. I don't have certainty, I have doubt.

You can try to spin that as a definitive accusation of lying but it will never make any sense. LOL.

The funny thing is, I would have no qualms whatsoever about calling them liars if I thought there was cast iron proof of this. As others pointed out, it would hardly be shocking if they did lie. I'd happily call them liars in this instance (with regard to the tapes) if I was certain. It's you who seems to think it's somehow forbidden to call then liars and perjurers, not me. I'd do it in a heartbeat if I felt sure. But, we can't be certain - either of their truthfulness or their deceptiveness - because we don't have the tapes.

Therefore - the tapes should be released.


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




posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 



I would have no qualms whatsoever about calling them liars if I thought there was cast iron proof of this.


But you are already calling them liars and yet you have no proof of it. Which, of course, proves the point that calling people liars is just a defensive strategy on your part, not an exclamation of fact.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Malcram
 



I would have no qualms whatsoever about calling them liars if I thought there was cast iron proof of this.


But you are already calling them liars and yet you have no proof of it. Which, of course, proves the point that calling people liars is just a defensive strategy on your part, not an exclamation of fact.



Proof goes both ways..

I'm yet to see PROOF of a 124' wide X 44' high plane with 2 x 3500kg engines and a weight of around 100 tons hitting the Pentagon..



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Malcram
 



I would have no qualms whatsoever about calling them liars if I thought there was cast iron proof of this.


But you are already calling them liars and yet you have no proof of it. Which, of course, proves the point that calling people liars is just a defensive strategy on your part, not an exclamation of fact.



Except that I have never called them liars. You have just fabricated that. I'm satisfied that everyone can see that, even if you won't admit it.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Malcram
 



I would have no qualms whatsoever about calling them liars if I thought there was cast iron proof of this.


But you are already calling them liars and yet you have no proof of it. Which, of course, proves the point that calling people liars is just a defensive strategy on your part, not an exclamation of fact.



Proof goes both ways..

I'm yet to see PROOF of a 124' wide X 44' high plane with 2 x 3500kg engines and a weight of around 100 tons hitting the Pentagon..


Well, I'd love to put you in a time machine and send you back, but I can't so you will have to be satsified with tons of evidence and testimony that is out there right now. I am sure you are more than familiar with it all. I am also sure you will employ the tack of simply deny that it is sufficient.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


I'm not the only one "simply denying the evidence is sufficient".
Or haven't you noticed that by the fact that every 9/11 thread here is heavilly debated still after 9 years??

Or will you point out the huge hole for me in this pic?
Or tell me where the 2 x 3500kg engines went, or what happened to the 124' wide wing and 44' high tail.??

I'll believe it was a boeing 757 when I see the PROOF..





posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Its so blatantly obvious!
I am amazed that the gov haven't come clean, they must be so embarrassed at how #e they are at faking things. It's like they forget the world is watching and it has a brain ( commonsense ) yet they just blunder through not thinking.


Or do they assume that the rest of the country and planat are so stupid they can't see the real situation here?



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   
are we still ranting and raving how a plane didnt hit the building despite the overwhelming amount of evidence inside and outside? there were aircraft parts everywhere. how much debris do you think there will be with a plane hitting a building at 500mph with a full tank of gas??????? im surprised there was as much debris as they found, i was expecting much less.

not that anyone will believe me here but i know someone personally who was at the marriot facing the pentagon who was shaving as he was looking out the window. he is a vdot manager, he said it was like it was in slow motion when the plane hit. he was stunned. he laughs when he hears people dont believe this plane hit the pentagon.

it did hit. if you want to waste your time arguing about it go for it.............



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Hahahahahhaha ,tnx again mate for laughing me, opening a beer now .

In 2001 My local food store have surveliance camera but acording to you Penthagon haven't ?



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by surfnow2
 



are we still ranting and raving how a plane didnt hit the building despite the overwhelming amount of evidence inside and outside? there were aircraft parts everywhere. how much debris do you think there will be with a plane hitting a building at 500mph with a full tank of gas??????? im surprised there was as much debris as they found, i was expecting much less.


Great, so point out all the evidence for me in this early pic.
Show me the RAGING fires that fuel caused..
Highlight where "there were aircraft parts everywhere".




posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by xavi1000
 


Exactly!!!



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


I could be completely wrong here and i admit that but .........
well I am not a gambling man but i would put my home on the line that NO PLANE PASSENGER AIRCRAFT HIT THAT BUILDING. NO WAY! look at all aviation accidents involving buildings ( with the exception of the world trade centre of course) the crash sites are littered with debris, human remains and devastation. I can't remember exactly but did they assume this "airliner was travelling at 500mph ?? NOT possible!

Still i wasn't there so could be wrong.
edit on 28/12/2010 by stewalters1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by zimishey
 




WHY does that 'pilot' not want to give his second name??


In addition to Weedwhacker's suggestion, it is also possible that he may be contractually forbidden from making 'official' statements.


Sorry, it was GoodOlDave that discussed why the pilot didn't give his full name. Sorry to both of you.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by stewalters1
 


One line post.


Exactly!!!


Ya know....I didn't
at you, in your "EBE" thread.......

For everyone, and this "camera" BS...and comparing it to your local convenience store.

THINK about it....what happens in convenience stores? They handle MONEY! Do they suffer from robberies? Do they have their OWN 24-hour live, real person Police Force, there patrolling?
AND......do most of those sorts of CCTV recordings ALSO film at a reduced frame rate, to save storage space on the recording medium???? (Because a person robbing a store doesn't move very fast, now does he, for most of the event???)

The Pentagon: Has its OWN 24-hour Police Force....( www.pfpa.mil... )....ARMED with guns and everything, will full legal authority as any other LEO, when on the Pentagon property.

Does NOT handle cash, and is not subject to many armed robberies (care to research the history of armed robberies at the Pentagon for us??)

AND, like many CCTV recording locations, does NOT need full motion, HD-quality video....single frames, at a reduced rate, is sufficient to catch MOST action....but NOT an airliner being flown by suicidal murdering hijackers at 480 knots.

THIS is what you people fail to comprehend. The airplane was moving at roughly ~800 FEET PER SECOND!!!


See it yet?

No, you DON'T "see" it....not when the camera takes about one or two frames, AT MOST, every second!!!

800 FEET PER SECOND!!! DO the darn math..........


edit on 5 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by xavi1000
 





And for your claim that the tapes dont exist you must proof that.


How exactly does one prove a negative?



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by xavi1000
 





And for your claim that the tapes dont exist you must proof that.


How exactly does one prove a negative?


PROOF IT!



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by stewalters1
 


One line post.


Exactly!!!


Ya know....I didn't
at you, in your "EBE" thread.......

For everyone, and this "camera" BS...and comparing it to your local convenience store.

THINK about it....what happens in convenience stores? They handle MONEY! Do they suffer from robberies? Do they have their OWN 24-hour live, real person Police Force, there patrolling?
AND......do most of those sorts of CCTV recordings ALSO film at a reduced frame rate, to save storage space on the recording medium???? (Because a person robbing a store doesn't move very fast, now does he, for most of the event???)

The Pentagon: Has its OWN 24-hour Police Force....( www.pfpa.mil... )....ARMED with guns and everything, will full legal authority as any other LEO, when on the Pentagon property.

Does NOT handle cash, and is not subject to many armed robberies (care to research the history of armed robberies at the Pentagon for us??)

AND, like many CCTV recording locations, does NOT need full motion, HD-quality video....single frames, at a reduced rate, is sufficient to catch MOST action....but NOT an airliner being flown by suicidal murdering hijackers at 480 knots.

THIS is what you people fail to comprehend. The airplane was moving at roughly ~800 FEET PER SECOND!!!


See it yet?

No, you DON'T "see" it....not when the camera takes about one or two frames, AT MOST, every second!!!

800 FEET PER SECOND!!! DO the darn math..........


edit on 5 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)


Good point well made

Never looked at it that way, but what about the lack of debris ??
Again i could be wrong but can an aircraft of substantial size (airliner) actually travel at that speed at that altitude with the drag ?



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 

I showed pictures before of cameras , he showed nothing

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



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



THIS is what you people fail to comprehend. The airplane was moving at roughly ~800 FEET PER SECOND!!!


See it yet?

No, you DON'T "see" it....not when the camera takes about one or two frames, AT MOST, every second!!!

800 FEET PER SECOND!!! DO the darn math..........


No Weedwhacker YOU Do the darn math..!!!!

Do you honestly expect us sheeple to believe the US Government is so tight assed about spending a few bucks of tax payers money on decent cameras and hard drive capacity.??
Especially at the Pentagon.?

And also with the arrivals of important pollies etc at the Helipad.??

Honestly, the air is thick with it...

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



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by weedwhacker


This person tends to (attempt to) sabotage these threads with nothing but cut and paste (already beaten to death) snippets. He/she has this need to stick



new topics

top topics



 
136
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join