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

reply to post by Alfie1


I am NOT disagreeing with it hitting the Pentagon. Coming from either directions it would still hit the pentagon in the same place, just from a different angle. I am NOT arguing about one individual thing. I am pointing out inconsistencies from the official story, from the 11 or so eye witnesses, including those 2 cops (all had exactly the same story, whether the one cop couldn't recall or not)

Release the footage of that morning. I'm done.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

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)

Their cameras don't have to be 'pointed at the Pentagon'. They could be pointed anywhere towards the pentagon or away from it, for miles, along the basic flight path. Many cameras would be capable of capturing that. And are we to believe that, as well as having multiple security camera's pointing at the Pentagon, that there are not also many Pentagon cameras pointing away from the building, to warn of any incoming threat? In short, yes, there should have been quite a lot of footage of the plane coming in towards the Pentagon and striking it, both from the public and the Pentagon.

Yet their isn't any.

Hadn't the Towers already been hit 50 minutes earlier? Weren't their many rumours of other targets? Wasn't the Pentagon a likely candidate? Don't you think many people nearby would go out with a camera, just in case? Absolutely.

Yet no plane footage involving the Pentagon. Hmm.

You cotinue:

.... 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.

Hardly. Pictures would have been inevitable. The Pentagon knew an object was heading for them. You don't think they were prepared to capture footage? The public knew that the Towers had been struck 50 minutes earlier. So it wasn't "a shock". You don't think anyone near the Pentagon with a camera surmised that it might be next and went out armed with a camera? Please.

If no one has footage it's because what hit it was too small and fast to be caught on camera, and because footage has been confiscated and withheld, not because anyone was caught of guard or didn't think the Pentagon might be hit.

Finally, you claim the speed of the plane would prohibit photographs. Well the speed was supposedly 530 mph, similar to the speed of the planes that hit the towers, at around 490 and 590 mph, yet they were caught on film no problem.

Does this look too fast for any cameraman? Nope. Yet it's considerably faster than the Pentagon "plane", apparently.

reply to post by mikelee


Well, you might want to actually READ the book then. Or maybe read the transcripts of his interviews about it.

911reports.wordpress.com...

He fully believes it was Al Qaeda/Osama Bin Laden that attacked us that day. His problem was the massive CYA done by various individuals to hide their ineptitude.

Originally posted by talisman
Lets not forget that the Gov did indeed confiscate footage some of which was released later or so we are told. So right from the get go, they were careful about what was filmed. If they weren't hiding anything why would they go around looking for such footage and not releasing it right away? So they are hiding something.

Next, there are cameras all over the Pentagon, Michael Moore mentioned seeing them previous to the event and he thought it odd that not one of those cameras caught the event.

The skeptics try and argue that the cameras are not equipped to capture such a fast moving target. That would mean that the Pentagon only had cameras that would be good to capture a robbery at an instant bank machine! I mean, that is ridiculous.

The FBI collected the videos as EVIDENCE. Most of which was completely useless to the investigation. Then appearantly, we have another individual with the Hollywood view of the US Government. A Government that is always efficient, always has the best equipment and is always evil.

As you can see before the area in question collapsed at the Pentagon there is NO debris indicating a 757 crashed.


No... those 2 agents were not picking up debris....they were placing it. More than likely both. Thing I cannot figure out is how do you involve so many to go along with the playwright?
1. Good Money?
2. Fear?
3. Both ?

Unfortunately if the citizens were to believe all of this without a shadow of a doubt... that it was indeed all fake....they would do nothing to take back their government. Denial , Justification, head in sand would still trump.

Most US citizens have more FLIGHT than Fight in their reptilian brains to effectively do anything. Things will proceed as the overlords have planned.

Originally posted by jessejamesxx
reply to post by Alfie1

 

I am NOT disagreeing with it hitting the Pentagon. Coming from either directions it would still hit the pentagon in the same place, just from a different angle. I am NOT arguing about one individual thing. I am pointing out inconsistencies from the official story, from the 11 or so eye witnesses, including those 2 cops (all had exactly the same story, whether the one cop couldn't recall or not)

Release the footage of that morning. I'm done.

I would just ask you to look carefully at the flightpaths described by the CIT witnesses before you conclude that they " all had exactly the same story ".

reply to post by superluminal11


The two agents were placing the debiris...in front of the hundreds of witnesses that were there? And all of them kept their mouths shut?

Home drug tests are on aisle five.............

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


We will know....and I hope it won't be long!

There were many very reliable eyewitness accounts that saw a passenger jet fly into the Pentagon. Why they are continually disregarded baffles me. Like that "effort" to interview all of them that concluded they were all wrong - they interviewed less than 1/4th, and for those who gave a very precise eyewitness testimony, they were dismissed for various ridiculous reasons. They CONCLUDED the eyewitnesses were ALL wrong, even though they were not able to interview all who saw it. How's that for thoroughness!

Following is a snippet from an email interview of Steve Riskus, who had photos directly after the event. He initially gave a statement about the AA plane hitting - later, after hearing all the conspiracy theories, clearly irritated, he said this:

"I am sorry to rain on your parade, but I saw the plane hit the building. It did not hit the ground first... It did not hit the roof first... It hit dead center on the side... I was close enough (about 100 feet or so) that I could see the "American Airlines" logon on the tail as it headed towards the building..."


He goes on to say he saw it come in low, was not on fire or damaged he could see - didn't hit the ground, it did knock over some light poles, and he saw it hit the building.

But apparently to many conspiracy theorists, it's ok to simply disregard statements like these - obviously they are not important if they are at odds with your own ideas. It somehow makes MORE sense that dozens of witnesses were all wrong or mistaken or lying, that our government was able to plant debris that no one saw, plant bodies in the building, make a plane full of passengers completely disappear without a trace (but managed to get luggage.. damaged it before returning it to families), knew magically that there would be eyewitnesses who claimed they saw lightpoles being knocked over, and so in the same time frame of a few minutes, ran out and knocked over strategically placed lightpoles.. again, without anyone noticing.. etc. Somehow this explanation makes -more- sense to them?

Here is the most telling failure of accounts like these. The OP who is DEAD-CERTAIN they are right.. go directly at-odds with OTHER detailed, "well researched" conspiracy theories.. which are completely different than this one. Like the "no flyover - no plane" theory. Guess what.. both your theories can't be right. With so many accounts about what "really" happened so different from each other.. did it ever occur to you that you could be WRONG? Some of you have to be. But... no, you and the others will continue to insist your version of events was the one true version... facts and evidence be damned.

P.S. There are disasters and events occurring quite often, even in busy areas, that are never captured on film. And you are jumping to conclusions that the government "usually" releases video of said events if they have it. Why would they? This is not a normal criminal investigation, it was a terror attack. I can't imagine they would want to release anything that might prove valuable info to terror groups.

reply to post by vipertech0596


Exactly....that is the one thing that makes me question...In front of many witnesses?

Now which aisle did you say the drug testing kits were on and what aisle is the Sudafed and protein bars?

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

I believe I have made it real clear that it is my opinion flight 93 was shot down. There is more circumstantial evidence to assert that then compared to relatively no evidence to prove conclusively that it was not shot down. Especially if your next post is gonna be the "OS says it crashed". I no longer get into the debates with type sin here looking to argue for the sake of an argument, thats a waste of my time and I no longer entertain such. BTW, the definition of circumstantial evidence is as follows:

I like how you think!

Flight 93 either safely landed in Cleveland as first reported (that was thought to have a bomb inside but was later explained as a series of 'confusion' that morning) or...............it was shot down over Shanksville. Which would explain the 8 miles of debris on the ground.

But what say you to Flight 77 (Pentagon)? Where do you suppose that plane disappeared to?
It clearly.... without a doubt....did not hit the Pentagon so, where did it go? Was it even a real flight that day?

Barbara Olson was supposedly on it (with phone calls and all) but that story has turned out to be either, more confusion or totally bogus. So that just adds to the phantom-plane theory.

So mikelee, please tell me your feelings about flight 77 because I still can't figure it out.

reply to post by fleabit


But the thing is, to everyone who supposedly saw a plane hit, there is at least one or two people (and news reporters) who adamantly witnessed the opposite (that NO plane hit the building)

So the real question is: why the diametrically opposing witnesses? How could one person 'see' the plane hit and the next person 'not see a plane hit' the building at all"?

I don't think there's a discrepancy as to whether a plane flew by the building that morning rather, did one actually HIT the building?

Originally posted by mikelee
For those of you who believe in the OS or simply do not think anything other than an airliner hit the Pentagon, I respect your theory ...

It's not a theory. Eyewitness' all over the city saw the plane come in at a very rapid speed and at a very low altitude. That's not theory. That's fact. What is theory is that something else hit the pentagon when in fact all eyewitness' say otherwise.

Again .. go ask the cabbies .... or the tour guides in Arlington ... etc.

Originally posted by fleabit
There were many very reliable eyewitness accounts that saw a passenger jet fly into the Pentagon. Why they are continually disregarded baffles me. Like that "effort" to interview all of them that concluded they were all wrong - they interviewed less than 1/4th, and for those who gave a very precise eyewitness testimony, they were dismissed for various ridiculous reasons. They CONCLUDED the eyewitnesses were ALL wrong, even though they were not able to interview all who saw it. How's that for thoroughness!

Following is a snippet from an email interview of Steve Riskus, who had photos directly after the event. He initially gave a statement about the AA plane hitting - later, after hearing all the conspiracy theories, clearly irritated, he said this:

"I am sorry to rain on your parade, but I saw the plane hit the building. It did not hit the ground first... It did not hit the roof first... It hit dead center on the side... I was close enough (about 100 feet or so) that I could see the "American Airlines" logon on the tail as it headed towards the building..."


He goes on to say he saw it come in low, was not on fire or damaged he could see - didn't hit the ground, it did knock over some light poles, and he saw it hit the building.

But apparently to many conspiracy theorists, it's ok to simply disregard statements like these - obviously they are not important if they are at odds with your own ideas. It somehow makes MORE sense that dozens of witnesses were all wrong or mistaken or lying, that our government was able to plant debris that no one saw, plant bodies in the building, make a plane full of passengers completely disappear without a trace (but managed to get luggage.. damaged it before returning it to families), knew magically that there would be eyewitnesses who claimed they saw lightpoles being knocked over, and so in the same time frame of a few minutes, ran out and knocked over strategically placed lightpoles.. again, without anyone noticing.. etc. Somehow this explanation makes -more- sense to them?

Here is the most telling failure of accounts like these. The OP who is DEAD-CERTAIN they are right.. go directly at-odds with OTHER detailed, "well researched" conspiracy theories.. which are completely different than this one. Like the "no flyover - no plane" theory. Guess what.. both your theories can't be right. With so many accounts about what "really" happened so different from each other.. did it ever occur to you that you could be WRONG? Some of you have to be. But... no, you and the others will continue to insist your version of events was the one true version... facts and evidence be damned.

P.S. There are disasters and events occurring quite often, even in busy areas, that are never captured on film. And you are jumping to conclusions that the government "usually" releases video of said events if they have it. Why would they? This is not a normal criminal investigation, it was a terror attack. I can't imagine they would want to release anything that might prove valuable info to terror groups.

Excellent post fleabit, amongst the top 1 % I have seen on here. Unfortunately, the rabid nutters will pretend it doesn't exist.

reply to post by superluminal11


You are kidding right? You do realize that the Pentagon sits next to a freeway right? That it was during the period around the morning rush hour? And somehow, you think that the bad guys set off a bomb and then ran around dumping off pieces of airliner wreckage on the lawn, the freeway, and Arlington National Cemetary? LIke I said....aisle five.

This is the guy that made up all this nonesense, sitting in his armchair in Paris - without conducting the slightest actual research - the book was an instant bestseller in France. - I only visit these threads to watch the spectacle of people making complete and utter asses of themselves.



In 2002, French conspiracy theorist Thierry Meyssan wrote a book suggesting that a cruise missile instead of a plane hit the Pentagon on September 11, and the planes that hit the World Trade Center towers had not been hijacked but were piloted by remote control. Mr. Meyssan believes both attacks were masterminded not by al Qaeda, but "from inside the American state apparatus."


But he never traveled to the United States to conduct research or interviewed any of the many eyewitnesses to the attack on the Pentagon. He ignores or dismisses the many eyewitness accounts -- some of which specifically identified the plane as having American Airlines markings, as a Boeing 757, and as a plane with passengers onboard, visible through windows. On May 16, 2006, the Pentagon released videotape footage showing the plane hitting the Pentagon.


In addition to the numerous eyewitness accounts, the remains of the passengers and crew onboard American Airlines flight 77 were recovered from the Pentagon crash site. A team of more than 100 forensic specialists and others identified 184 of the 189 people who died in the Pentagon attack (125 from the Pentagon and 64 onboard American Airlines flight 77). All but one of the passengers onboard American Airlines flight 77 was positively identified as a match with DNA samples provided by the families of the crash victims. These positive forensic identifications provide irrefutable proof that American Airlines flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon on September 11.

web.archive.org...

Originally posted by Human_Alien
reply to post by fleabit

 

But the thing is, to everyone who supposedly saw a plane hit, there is at least one or two people (and news reporters) who adamantly witnessed the opposite (that NO plane hit the building)

So the real question is: why the diametrically opposing witnesses? How could one person 'see' the plane hit and the next person 'not see a plane hit' the building at all"?

I don't think there's a discrepancy as to whether a plane flew by the building that morning rather, did one actually HIT the building?

edit on 26-12-2010 by Human_Alien because: grammar

OK, time to put up or shut up. Here is a list of Pentagon witnesses :-

911research.wtc7.net...

Where is your list of people who "adamantly" didn't see any impact ?

reply to post by mikelee


the only explanation for the officials picking up the pieces of debris is that they would of been identified even on camera as parts of a missle/global hawk, and wasnt rumsfeld pictured on the lawn helping the injured,what a joke, if it was in the least bit funny i would laugh..dumbed down america and dumbed down planet is too kind of a slurr for the people who choose to look away when this sort of evidence is right in front of them

Its incredible we can get 100s of thousands of men to fight and die for LIES by government officials but we cannot get just 1 patriot in the know to put his life on the line and bring damning evidence of 911 to fore.

reply to post by Alfie1


The bottom line...in order to put the Pentagon argument to rest is, SHOW IT!

If a plane hit then SHOW IT.

The fact they are NOT SHOWING silently supports the 'no-plane-hit-the-building-theory'.

It's really as simple as that.

We can not re-create the events that morning which has almost half the world divided in their 'inside job' mind set but the ONLY event that can be put to rest, without anymore scuttlebutt is, the Pentagon.

If they can provide evidence that a plane did indeed hit the building then perhaps we Truthers will re-consider our entire thought-process regarding that day.

I really want to be wrong. I want to think I was being too cynical and suspicious and I would love to be brought down a rung in my arrogance ladder. But so far, 10 years later, the more they don't help me change my mind the more it grows in intensity.

I know this is not about me and my feelings but.........it's a matter of WHY they are not doing the little bit they can in order to TRY to unify this nation again.

They won't (show the videos) because they can't. That is how it looks anyway.