It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by FlyersFan
Originally posted by backinblack
And yet not one pic..
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.
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.
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.
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:
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 ...
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.
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