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: 8
136
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


But imagine if you will that a plane (passenger, commuter or other) is dipping down low and from all appearances, LOOKS like it's about to crash into a structure. Now first, you'd be looking at it in amazement, no?

Now let's further imagine, at the last minute (a SKILLED pilot) bolted upwards after launching a missile into said-structure.
Now, WHO would be looking or noticing whether or not the plane flew above and away?

You'd be in total shock not to mention the structure being shrouded in massive smoke.

And in your wildest imagination, you aren't even THINKING that that is what (could've) transpired. Because after all, you saw a plane, you witnessed damage so you just put two and two together.

But now, in retrospect, it certainly looks like the unimaginable happened. And that's a Global Hawk or some SMALLER plane, captured everyone's attention and in the shock of processing what was happening in NYC then seeing an 'explosion' in the Pentagon, it absolutely makes total sense that this was probably a missile and not an airplane.

Again, this whole thread is about exposing the other videos.

JUST DO IT so we can get back to semi-normal life (and trust in our government) again.
edit on 26-12-2010 by Human_Alien because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
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??
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-.ed nodding consenters(sic) already.......

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




With your self disclosed knowledge of Washington, you sound like you work for the gobermnt Weedy.
Hmmmm.
As far as lack of cameras in that area, *snip*, our post office has cameras hanging off all four sides of the building.
And did I say it was just the Post Office?



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Lemme ask a question please.

Why is this Pentagon footage good enough for anyone? It doesn't even help support your Flight 77-hit the Pentagon theory.

So why is this sufficient for anyone?
We have an array of people with an array of accounts so that's.....not any good either.

We have an event that looks one way although the 'math' doesn't add up.

So in order to prove this finally (which according to the Feds, they can yet, won't) all they have to do is release the footage.
And you have to admit, the more they don't the more they look guilty. Even a Truster have to admit that!

And you want to see an example of the idiots who we are relying on as far as witnesses? Well here, here's a sad eye opening rendition.

So let's forget the witnesses and go on what this LOOKS like and how they are NOT showing the available (better quality) videos. Nuff said!




posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 03:59 PM
link   
I said this over and over years ago.

1) Pentagon has 100's, if not 1000's of cameras inside and outside, since it's a top secret area, and only one camera angle release. Whatever!

2) The Pentagon is the world's largest office building by floor area, with about 6,500,000 sq ft (604,000 m2), of which 3,700,000 sq ft (344,000 m2) are used as offices. Approximately 23,000 military and civilian employees. en.wikipedia.org...

3) Video's I posted back in the day are deleted, some other peoples video links are also gone.

4) Many people actually came up with brilliant observations in this old thread, it's worth reading through.

John Lear a former pilot and test pilot chimed in too.

757 Did Not Hit the Pentagon



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



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
Of course the public who believes every word the cowardly main stream media tells them and is led blindly into an unknown future will never know the reality of that incident on 911.
y]


EXACTLY!! No video to prove the OS is a huge red flag. As for the media...they're an essential part of our democratic system to help protect the people from government censorship and corruption. The job of the media is not to protect the government from embarrassment. These questions related to 9/11 should be investigated by the media to force our elected officials to launch a new investigation into possible criminal activity by our own government. Turning a blind eye to these legitimate questions is just another red flag that our media is being controlled by our government.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


How many planes have crashed into buildings with 85 security cameras active at the time of impact? And no footage? Get real - your line of reasoning is flawed.

Plant life has more fun.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   
This entire thread is pointless anyway. You know as well as I do, if the government ever ponied up a video of a plane hitting the Pentagon, then the new topic would be how they created a CGI video, and an inordinate amount of time would be spent trying to nitpick every single detail of said video.

It does not matter what they do - they are going to be blamed for this by a certain group of people, who are -convinced- our government is evil incarnate. No story, no witnesses, no videos, no proof of ANY kind will convince them otherwise.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Violater1
 


????


With your self disclosed knowledge of Washington, you sound like you work for the gobermnt Weedy...


DO you mean that someone who has LIVED HERE for over ten years wouldn't get to "know" a few things???

This is the delusion that most "truthers" tend to dwell? One doesn't have to "work for the gobermnt" to have eyes to look at the area, and examine it for oneself....something that 99.9% of the basement "keyboard warriors" on the "conspiracy" InterWebz have never done.

BTW, there are at least TWO ATS staff (Mod and S-Mod...but before that, they were just reg'lar members) who know my employment history...since we ALL THREE worked at the same airline, coincidentally. SO, enough! with your veiled (and puerile) "accusations"....they are demeaning......

BTW, scrolling through, there was another post (NOT you) who mentioned, and oh how hilarious does it get, before "ridiculous" comes to mind!? "100's, if not 1000's of cameras, inside and out..."

LOL!

"85" becomes "100's"? Are all of these magical cameras ALL lined up to view the one side of the building??

Does THAT, "violator", agree with your views? Or, will you admit that even those claims border on ludicrous? Hey, it's YOUR crowd, you deal with it.....I prefer to live in reality.
edit on 26 December 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   
The establishment has been pushing the latest video release claiming that it shows the plane. Of-course it doesnt but the truth has very little to do with their assertions.

Loose Change shows news footage at the Pentagon of at-least one person who saw what he called a "small commuter plane". There was also a very well spoken witness who claims to not only have seen a 757 but clearly saw that it was American Airlines...

Well, at-least we dont have to investigate the cause of the WTC collapses. This fine gentleman was kind enough to summarize it for us.




posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 04:37 PM
link   
My question is not only, "why are there people walking around picking up debris?", but, why are there guys in dress slacks and a tie walking around picking up debris? My guess is they were told beforehand to scout the area for any aircraft parts and immediately retrieve them since they could easily be identified as NOT coming from said airliner. Unless they come up with verified video footage, they will never convince me that this damage was done by a conventional aircraft. A conventional aircraft would have folded up like an accordion upon hitting the first wall. This aircraft cleanly pierced three rings of the Pentagon. That's in and out of three rings, and the first ring was supposedly just reinforced and renovated.

I believe the Pentagon is the biggest smoking gun in the entire 9/11 sequence.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by micpsi
 


The hijackers were real. WTC7 is always shown in photos from the side that suffered the least damage, in fact it looks as if it was never damaged at all. The other side was nearly demolished. That photo I mentioned has led to many incorrect theory's regarding WTC7.

WTC7 is not the key to anything.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Pentagon approx 6 million square feet inside, with 5 acres outside and only 85 cameras?




Originally posted by weedwhacker


BTW, scrolling through, there was another post (NOT you) who mentioned, and oh how hilarious does it get, before "ridiculous" comes to mind!? "100's, if not 1000's of cameras, inside and out..."

LOL!

"85" becomes "100's"? Are all of these magical cameras ALL lined up to view the one side of the building??




Why is this hilarious? because you say it is so, then proceed to laugh about it. Logically that would be considered childish, trite and against ATS's slogan to "To Deny Ignorance". Where are your facts, links and logical analysis?

Here is mine.

Let's look at is from a logical and factual standpoint, since you appear to rely on emotions and trite comments.

The Pentagon

Pentagon


The Pentagon building spans 28.7 acres (116,000 m2), and includes an additional 5.1 acres (21,000 m2) as a central courtyard. The Pentagon is the world's largest office building by floor area, with about 6,500,000 sq ft (604,000 m2), of which 3,700,000 sq ft (344,000 m2) are used as offices.[2][3] Approximately 23,000 military and civilian employees[


28.7 acres do you have any idea how big that is?

An acre is an area of land equal to 43,560 square feet, now times that by 28 = approximately 1,219,680 sq. ft

But in actuality the Pentagon is more like 6 million square feet

Consevatively we take the 1,219,680 sq feet and divide it by 1000, that would be ONE camera every 1,200 sq feet, just on the inside of the Pentagon.

Now we are talking a top secret facility, which has about a trillion dollar annual budget, so ONE camera every 1200 square feet, inside and outside. Don't Think So.

1200 sq feet is about the layout of a single family ranch style home.

Now if we have 6 million square feet that is about ONE camera every 6,000 square feet, which I highly doubt, again this in interior only.

I would wager it's more like 1000's

85 cameras? Walmart has more than 85 cameras in one of it's stores.

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



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


ND, thanks. I can't understand that IF an airliner did hit it why the tapes are secured. Makes no sense yet the rabbit holers in here that flock to defend the OS (despite that Senior Counsel calls it a lie) can't get their . around that fact. No footage depicting an airliner = No plane.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


Can you provide links to photos of WTC7 having one side nearly 'demolished'?

I've never seen that. I have seen photos and videos from both sides. One side looks untouched, the other appeared to have one or two small fires. So I'd be interested if there was photo evidence of more substantial damage.

Even if this were the case, it certainly could never account for the collapse as it occurred, IMO.

I think perhaps you dismiss the significance of WTC7 too easily.

Claims of Severe Damage to WTC Building Seven.
edit on 26-12-2010 by Malcram because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 05:16 PM
link   
That photo sure looks like the empennage of the drone pictured.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Violater1
 


????

This is the delusion that most "truthers" tend to dwell? ....something that 99.9% of the basement "keyboard warriors" on the "conspiracy" ... SO, enough! with your veiled (and puerile) "accusations"....they are demeaning......
"85" becomes "100's"? Are all of these magical cameras ALL lined up to view the one side of the building??
Does THAT, "violator", agree with your views? Or, will you admit that even those claims border on ludicrous? Hey, it's YOUR crowd, you deal with it.....I prefer to live in reality.





I never cease to be amazed at when some people you debate are loosing ground, they resort to name calling and futile attempts to belittle or discredit you.
btw weedy, thanks for spelling my name right



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


The reason you have never seen it is the smoke from the collapse & fires prevented many from taking any photos of that side. There are some on the internet. I saw several photos depicting a vast amount of damage in the National Archives where I spent several days doing research on 911 and the OKC Bombing.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 05:31 PM
link   
ATTENTION

Thread topic is very clear. Stay on thread topic or posts will be reported for ATS forum violation.
Have a great day!



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Good thread. I know similar threads have been posted, but its always good to keep the debate going.
I knew from the moment of impact that a plane did not hit the pentagram. It's simple physics. ANY plane, and I mean ANY plane cannot do that kind of damage. A plane could not penetrate 6 reinforced concrete walls and leave an exit hole like that. It looks to me like the work of a horizontal flight bunker buster hybrid or something with a shaped charge war.. And one thing in common with both Flight 93 and the pentagon crash is the complete and utter lack of typical aircraft debris. Neither site had any clothing, luggage, seats, bodies, or anything else. The county coroner showed up at the flight 93 crash site and found no bodies. Just a few shards of metal and some engine parts.
One of the replies I read on page 1 had to do with the immediate cleanup at the pentagon site. They did this to destroy the crime scene so future forensics cannot be done. It also explains why videotapes from banks, hotels, convenience stores, gas stations, private businesses were all confiscated and won't be released. To this day I still cannot figure out what happened to all the passengers of those flights.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by OuttaTime
 


They did the same in OKC with the Murrah Building debris also. In less than a month after it was hit, officials from both OK City and the Fedgov denied multiple source requests to come in and examine the debris. The same in NYC & Pentagon. Whcih brings us back to the question of if there was an airliner and the Gov and so many are tired of these "dam conspiracy theorys" then show us the tapes!

If it shows an airliner then I will post a thread on it without hesitation. Until then......




top topics



 
136
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join