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: 7
136
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by fleabit
 


MOST people wouldnt know a Global Hawk (or Predator drone) from a barn door, especially flying fast at street level and adorned with an american airlines livery. Far-fetched?
edit on 26-12-2010 by nexusferox because: didnt consider predator drones




posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 12:37 PM
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.


I don't believe that is credible, as it assumes the hijackings were real. On the contrary, all the evidence indicates that it was bogus (the patsy hijacker CIA cut-outs were not even on board). This implies that Flight 93 was shot down because it was NOT Flight 93 but a surrogate containing explosives and remote-control technology that was intended to hit WTC7 shortly after the towers were hit, so that a reason could be established for why it collapsed. But this plan had to be replaced by plan B because the actual Flight 93 took off late. This plan, I suggest, was to keep the plane flying aimlessly in the air until everyone was convinced it had been hijacked, then shoot it out of the sky, leaving not enough debris to make sharp eyes realize that it was not a commercial jet. Plan B meant that WTC7 had to be demolished as intended. To minimize the goof-up, the demolition was carried out as late as possible. But it was already too late for the mistake to escape detection, as the fires and damage from the destruction of the North Tower were totally insufficient to bring down the building in the way it was observed to do.

WTC7 is the key to 9/11, not Flight 93 or the Pentagon, as it is the most obvious evidence of a planned 9/11 that went wrong.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by stigup
Then you have this guy Tim Roemer saying that a missile hit the pentagon. Also I noticed that thing in the photo from the gas station camera and I must say it looks very similar to the Air Force drone. Maybe it's possible the drone was coming in to look like a crash and fired a missile and pulled off. Check the video out.





And using "missile" as a simile is proof positive ? Ignore everything else.

What have you seen from the Citgo gas station videos ? All I have seen is customers filling cars and paying for it.


I never said it was definitively a missile. I was just stating a possibility of what could of happened because I know 100% for sure that there was no American Airliner 757 that hit the pentagon. Regardless of what the gas station video shows it's obvious that they are hiding the other 84 videos because their story doesn't hold weight. Also how is what he is saying a similie? If he said, "seeing the pentagon pryed open by a missile, a airplane' It seems like he meant to say airplane and had a Freudian slip.
edit on 26-12-2010 by stigup because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by nexusferox
reply to post by fleabit
 


MOST people wouldnt know a Global Hawk from a barn door, especially flying fast at street level and adorned with an american airlines livery. Far-fetched?


Yes, a global hawk is 44 feet long. A Boeing 757 is 178 feet long. Talk about apples and oranges.

Please indicate to me the parts in the wreckage which came from a global hawk ? thanks,



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   
And the 84 videos is trotted out again



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


wreckage? what wreckage? and please show me something that resembles a 178ft long object.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Randomname,
I believe you have hit the 'ol nail on the head. I either missed the following, or was just never in the right place to hear, but has anyone ever confirmed what supposedly happened to all the passengers of these flights, and does anyone have a copy of the manifests ? I was in Ketchikan, Ak. at my job as a helicopter pilot when I was awakened by some "rustling" noises downstairs in my office. It turns out that my fellow pilot and mechanic were turning on the T V to observe all the hysteria that was happening that day, and of course we were grounded from flying. I came back to the Lower 48 on Oct. 3rd. That was because it took that long to get my VFR flight plan approved to re-enter the U.S. at Bellingham, Wa. Weird flying that day to say the least.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   


Was just more 'confusion' until they got their story straight???
Were you people even awake on 9-11??? Don't you remember all these 'non-plane' (hitting the Pentagon) reports??????







"White commuter plane".....?

Hmmmmm.

"Hit the heliport".....?

Hmmmmmm

"Plane didn't go into the building..."?




So this is how this works after almost 10 years: Certain witnesses only become valuable witnesses when they help support certain sides. So it's a game of perpetual non-ending he said-she said 'proof'.

Aren't you getting tired of this yet????
SHOW US THE VIDEO!!!


So in the meantime we present these clips only to have your side chime in saying these were taken out of contents and/or misunderstandings, right?

So once again....release the REAL video of the REAL plane hitting that building so we can put this to rest!!!
edit on 26-12-2010 by Human_Alien because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by stigup
 


You seem SO certain, yet have absolutely, positively NO backup for the claim that you:

...know 100% for sure that there was no American Airliner 757 that hit the pentagon...


In the midst of all that 100% "certainty", how do you account for and explain the 100% certain EVIDENCE of the Boeing 757 that was actually being flown and operated by American Airlines, and designated as the regularly scheduled flight 77, IAD-LAX that morning?

BTW...this thread is a waste of time...the definitive was authored over FIVE years ago here on ATS:

9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by nexusferox
reply to post by Alfie1
 


wreckage? what wreckage? and please show me something that resembles a 178ft long object.



Here is wreckage inside the Pentagon. All compatible with a Boeing 757.

www.rense.com...

You expect, in a collision between an airliner at 400 + mph and a reinforced building, to find wreckage the same length as the original airplane ? I give up.
edit on 26-12-2010 by Alfie1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


So that wreckage from the engines somehow all went in through that tiny hole ??

I guess the wings folded in nice and tight when they hit the poles...and everything compactly went straight ahead.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by micpsi
 


Flight 93 and the Pentagon are huge smoking guns but WTC7 is what cinched it for me. I've always thought that Flight 93 was headed to WTC7, because of all the files and the fact that it was obviously pre-wired.

I do think that the mere fact that they have not released the frames and have kept so much footage back is extremely suspicious. That footage will come out one day. I only hope I am alive to see it!



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


People tend to refer to "government" and the "military" as being the same without any deep thought. In fact, at this point, I seriously doubt the "US government" is the same as the "US military". The US military doesn’t report to the US government. No Senator or the Secretary of State has any authority over the US military. No one questions at the Congress the whereabouts of the missing 2 trillion dollars, no one even asks where the surveillance videos of the Pentagon attack despite the presence of hundreds of surveillance cameras at the premise at the time.

Does anyone realize that the US government was/is/has been hijacked by the US military and the ones who control it?

Why crying and suspecting, instead, ask this question, does the US military owned by and works for the people of the United States?

If the answer is NO, what more do you need and why all these conspiracy discussion nonsenses? Conspiracy is right in front of your nose and you just don't see it.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I think the point that mikelee was trying to make is that there were SEVERAL CAMERAS on at the time, and that the governemnt is not releasing the footage. I don't think anyone refutes that. Hey, I stubbed my toe the other day, but it was not being filmed. Just because it wasn't filmed, doesn't mean it didn't happen. We all get that, and understand it fully. I think that what mikelee is suggesting is similar to telling my wife when she asks "what happened to your toe?", me lying to her and saying "the dog bit it", and then her saying "yeah, but theres 80+ cameras in our house, why won't you hand over the tapes?". Your logic is flawed good sir/madam.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by WdBASH
 


well we all know extremists use the trade tower attack footage in their propoganda. We see it in extremists videos glorifying their work.

if you were in charge of the CIA and had clear footage of the pentagon attack would you release it to the public and at the same time give your enemy a golden nugget of propoganda for them to use?

I dont think i would.

edit: the more you think about the idea it wasnt a plane the more stupid it gets. Why would the goverment risk relying on nobody getting a photo or video of their missile/uav when deciding to attack a populated area? 1 photo is all it would take for the consipracy to unravel. The secret government must be the most stupid & lucky organisation ever...
edit on 26-12-2010 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrinchNoMore
reply to post by Alfie1
 


So that wreckage from the engines somehow all went in through that tiny hole ??

I guess the wings folded in nice and tight when they hit the poles...and everything compactly went straight ahead.


Is this the " tiny hole " you have in mind ?


911research.wtc7.net...



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by WdBASH
 


I have to ask folks like you (and others) who parrot this claim about the "cameras". Is it blind devotion to what's been written on "9/11 conspiracy" websites? I say "blind" because I wonder if any of you have ever come to the Washington, D.C., area and had a look with your own eyes, at the layout of the actual Pentagon??

You can look at photos, and watch what videos there are, and speculate by reading the "claims" of "conspiracy" sites....who, BTW, usually are just repeating it from some other site, and NO ONE actually did the proper research....but to get a real sense of the scope and scale you have to come and look.

The many parking areas around the Pentagon have Public access. There are signs discouraging the taking of photos, of course...they don't want people "casing" the joint...but, this is becoming a common prohibition at many Government buildings...and even non-government, but otherwise famous or prominent ones, and other landmarks of note.

On the "photo taking"....as I said, there are signs, but enforcement is spotty, and lackluster. I have seen people simply yelled at, by one of the Pentagon Police officers, from dozens of yards away. No "rushing over" to confiscate the camera, erase the memory card, or any such thing. AND, this is just what they can "police" when people are on the actual property. NOTHING would stop someone from using very powerful lenses and taking many detail photos, from perfectly legal locations, and out of the jurisdiction of the Pentagon Police. Point being, the external cameras that are present are quite evident, and by actually going in person and observing, this whole fantasy about the "camera coverage" that is alleged to have been so extensive falls apart.

IS IT (maybe) more extensive today, post 9/11? I don't know. Probably. Still, back THEN? There wasn't any great need, the security that was (is) in place monitored the entrances mostly, Human foot traffic entries, and the controlled gate access points for vehicles. (Anything else that is "not" revealed?? I really doubt it....when you consider the purpose of the building! Heck, the FBI building in downtown D.C.....the FAA building.....the Department of Homeland Security, in Pentagon City --- and within walking distance from the Pentagon, BTW --- probably has more camera coverage! And, DHS, of course, didn't exist as an entity in 2001....). And, that just names a few.

The Pentagon is a HUGE office building, and it really has no 'strategic' importance.....any really secure portions will be underground, secret, and heavily fortified with severe access restrictions. The rest of the building (above-ground five stories) is composed of offices, with a substantial number (maybe even a majority) of the personnel being civilians, working as DoD employees or for contractors that DoD employs....

Really, the Pentagon's convenience (to "top brass") lies, one would think, in its proximity to the "House", and the President....for Cabinet Meeting appointments, strategy meetings, and such. You can usually tell when "something" is afoot, by the helicopter traffic. (Not exactly subtle).

There simply seems to have been no reason for extensive camera surveillance coverage of the sort being "demanded" (now) by the people who still "question" (more like groping int he dark). Instead of the back-slapping and glad-handing, I wish people would do some real research of their own .... this topic has enough bobble-headed nodding consenters already.......




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



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by GrinchNoMore
reply to post by Alfie1
 


So that wreckage from the engines somehow all went in through that tiny hole ??

I guess the wings folded in nice and tight when they hit the poles...and everything compactly went straight ahead.


Is this the " tiny hole " you have in mind ?


911research.wtc7.net...


Comments like that badly undermine your credibility Alfie.

Please don't pretend that the hole created by the collapse well AFTER the "plane crash" is in any way the same as the original penetration hole prior to the collapse, which was indeed, very small. Even the hole made after the collapse is not big enough to account for a large passenger jet strike.

You know all this - or at least you should, otherwise you shouldn't even be discussing this until you have informed yourself - which is why your last comment as well as your chosen selection of misleading post-collapse photos seems intended to deceive.

Here are the relevant pre-collapse photos, from the same source you used and which you should have linked to if you had wanted to be honest, showing the original penetration damage, which is indeed a relatively "tiny hole".

PRE-collapse Pentagon photos.
edit on 26-12-2010 by Malcram because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 02:59 PM
link   
For all those that believe that it would be so easy to fake a plane crash right smack dab in the middle of the DC/Arlington area, i have to really question sanity.

Of those that do, how many of you have actually been to Washington DC during a weekday? I have been there, spent about three days in DC. Stayed in a hotel next to Dulles Intl Airport, and took the buses to the Mall every morning, which took us right next to the Pentagon. The amount of traffic, people outside, people at the Lincoln Memorial, at Arlington National Cemetery, in and around the Pentagon is amazing. There are SO MANY people and potential witnesses that would be able to see a clear shot of the Pentagon, that it would be impossible to fake a crash, or have a plane fly over the Pentagon, or whatever. Traffic next to the Pentagon is nuts, especially in the morning. Standing behind the Lincoln Memorial looking up the bridge towards the Pentagon gives a great view of the approaching airliner and impact. Also would give a great view of any magical fly overs, UAVs, or missiles. Standing at General Lee's house overlooking the Pentagon also give a great view of the impact sight. SO many people in all of these areas, I am surprised that not one of them has come forward to say no plane hit the Pentagon. I have been there and the amount of people around there in the morning would make it airtight a plane hitting the Pentagon.

Next time you want to go and spout off no plane hitting the Pentagon, why dont you actually go there and see for yourself the area. I rode down that freeway and saw for myself the path that the plane took. Go and see it yourself!



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Text Yellow
reply to post by WdBASH
 

if you were in charge of the CIA and had clear footage of the pentagon attack would you release it to the public and at the same time give your enemy a golden nugget of propoganda(sic) for them to use?
I dont(sic) think i would.
edit: the more you think about the idea it wasnt(sic) a plane the more stupid it gets. Why would the goverment(sic) risk relying on nobody getting a photo or video of their missile/uav when deciding to attack a populated area? 1 photo is all it would take for the consipracy(sic) to unravel. The secret government must be the most stupid & lucky organisation(sic) ever...
edit on 26-12-2010 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)



"give your enemy a golden nugget of propaganda"?
You really think that 4 months of constant broadcasting from ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX and Al Jazzera wasn't enough? That video from the Pentagon would really make a difference!
Really?
Really! Don't you recall that less than twentyfour hours later, Al Jezzera showed little muslim kiddies jumping up and down, waving PLO flags and photos of the Twin Towers on fire (rumor has it that Al Jezzera gave the children candy to make them all excited. They were innocent of the carnage)? What are you smoking?
Just release the video tapes. End of story.
btw, are you related to WeedSmoker?
Try enabling the spell checker in your web browser.


edit on 26-12-2010 by Violater1 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
136
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join