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: 9
136
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 05:56 PM
link   
So far the skeptical response has been to fall back on certain eyewitnesses, claim that the cameras were not up to the game, then some call into question the 'reality' of those who question the "Official Conspiracy".

It is my view that the skeptical response so far has been extremely weak.

There are numerous eyewitnesses that contradict the "Official Flight Path"

There is every reason to believe that a facility such as the Pentagon (which is gov/military by nature) would have high tech working cameras, since one of the ways it could be attacked in the event of a war with China or Russia, would be by way of Air, so visual identification would be crucial in a time of war and its just not believable to think they only had the visual capability to capture a robbery at your local 7 EleveN!

So far I see good reason to doubt the "Official Conspiracy Theory."




posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


No my friend I would not expect to find such a thing, I would however expect to find visual evidence of a 178ft long object EVEN on those dubious 5 frames of released video. I also would have expected to see broken windows even if they did weigh half a ton each, lots of burning grass and at least a house-sized crater below the impact zone, it goes without saying I would expect to see human remains and luggage (especially if they identified nearly every passenger from dna remains), much more structural devastation, two massive and virtually indestructable jet engines and landing gear relatively intact, yet more structural devastation from said objects, S.O.P's being used, the skies above the building swarming with interceptors already and donald photo-op rumsfeld safe and sound in a bunker, surrounded by brass. I would have expected the ground- to-air rocket/missile defense system to have done it's job too.

I would NOT have expected to see an aircraft make an exit hole appear after 9 combined feet of structural concrete and rebar, specifically designed and upgraded to withstand such a thing, I would not have expected to hear Mineta's testimony if all things were legit, i would not expect to see discrepancies between black box flight data and FAA radar records, I would not expect the most heavily defended building in the United States of America to have a working camera ratio of 1:85 and if you'd care to go stand within half a mile of the Pentagon and make a joint, you'll soon find out exactly how well surveilled it is.

I'm not even definitively stating that I dont believe 77 hit the pentagon because it's such a divisive issue, even between the two hemispheres of my own brain. On the one hand why would they use a drone to fake an airliner collision when they could just use the airliner and eliminate all doubts, but on the other hand why after 10 years are we all still wondering? why?

Because if it smells fishy, there's a high probability it really is fishy.
edit on 26-12-2010 by nexusferox because: spelling errors



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 05:57 PM
link   
Nice thread OP. I do not think though that a Global Hawk attacked the Pentagon. They have far far more advanced aircraft than the Global Hawk. The Pentagon is in possession of UFOs that can fly very fast and they have very exotic weapons that are still hidden from the public. I think that was what was used in the Pentagon attack.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


As much as I don't like addressing your posts (because all you do is come on threads to argue them) but, I think you can agree that the fact that one can't even Google "How many CCTV's does the Pentagon have" is very VERY suspicious.
I can find out how many dresses Princess Di owned but I can't have a simple answer to a simple inquiry? Why is that?
What would that have to do with national security? They should be PROUD of showing us how they're spending our tax money in such a responsible manner. Plus, you'd think they'd flaunt this information so to be a deterrent to thwart future criminal activity!

Whatever Weed. I don't know what your MO is but you are certainly a person that others love to hate.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 06:02 PM
link   
This is the issue that stumbles me up about 9/11 - the Pentagon. The way the scene appeared, the size of the impact - missing what I would expect of wing impact from the claimed size of Aircraft. I am not fighting about it down to specifics - I am just saying it doesn't look or "feel" right to ME.

By the way. My first impression of those men in nice black slacks and black ties is they only need a blazer and sunglasses to look like proverbal "Men in Black" and I have to agree 100% with the OP, when is wreckage picked up immediately and why? Why would they be doing this? I would think it less strange if these were uniformed military members or jacketed FBI or FAA agents that came out of the Pentagon to help. In most crash scenes we commonly see - those processing the wreckage - seem prepared and organized to do so. Usually they are wearing ball caps, shirts, gloves - things that identify they are part of the salvage team. Not just a couple of guys in dress pants helping themselves to picking up wreckage without a command and control established at the scene.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
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......


I'm with you on that one. They won't release the tapes because it is all damning evidence. I always find it compelling when they are in such a rush to remove the debris from 'terrorist attack' sites when they need to be running forensics on it. But since they created the crisis to implement a media spin, they stumble over themselves to cover up all the loose ends they left hanging out. They false flag a site, whirlwind the cleanup, encourage Americans to 'go back to your everyday life' and then start with the inapropriate legislation. The airliner they refer to has a fiberglass nose, aluminum structure and panels. Apparently they've never watched mythbusters demolish an F4 on a concrete block. But a Tomahawk, on the other hand, will penetrate concrete.

I always thought something was awry with the OKC incident. Same as the USMC Beirut bombing.


edit on 26-12-2010 by OuttaTime because: added photo

edit on 26-12-2010 by OuttaTime because: image



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by talisman
 


Falling back to eyewitnesses is even more suspect for obvious reasons....

The Commission ONLY accepted eyewitness statements that jives with what the Commission wished to hear. Those witnesses that held or voiced anything different were not included and were left out. Not a very objective nor professional inquest at all.

What many do not realize is that the 911 Report is not an investigation panel at all, it was put together after pressure placed on the Bush administration and was under funded and members were hand picked by a panel The White House. The report is only a collection of opinions, witness statements etc that culminated in what the White House originally wanted. John Farmer, Sr. Counsel to the Commission said as much also.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


Would you seriously want Pentagon information to be publicly assessable? Can you Google who's in the KGB?



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by nexusferox
 


My friend, I believe one of the answers is contained within your post. I agree that the Government could have used an airliner if they so desired. I also agree that the damage to the Pentagon could not have been caused by a commercial airliner. The Government needed to use a drone to inflict the damage necessary to destroy the records surrounding the missing money that Rumsfeld had spoken of the day before. Tis is my humble opinion.
edit on 26-12-2010 by Mannie159 because: text not inserted



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Question for all the cruise missile believers:


Do you believe that high level people actually sat around a table and planned this beforehand?

That they would hit the Pentagon with a crusie missile, and then simply pass it off as a plane, after having presumably done something with the real plane and its passengers.


Give me a scenario that seems believable to you and the rationale behind it.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by talisman
 


if it was an inside job can you tell me why the people who planned it would risk being caught by 1 photo or video by a member of the public?

1 photo or video of their ufo/uav/cruise missile and the games up. All that work and 1 photo could get you caught? doesnt make sense. But none of the "no-planer" stuff does

carry on



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
Question for all the cruise missile believers:


Do you believe that high level people actually sat around a table and planned this beforehand?

That they would hit the Pentagon with a crusie missile, and then simply pass it off as a plane, after having presumably done something with the real plane and its passengers.


Give me a scenario that seems believable to you and the rationale behind it.


Can you honestly look at the pictures and evidence and see where a 124' wide plane hit the Pentagon.??
Who knows what hit it but I don't think it was a boeing 757..



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mannie159
reply to post by nexusferox
 


My friend, I believe one of the answers is contained within your post. I agree that the Government could have used an airliner if they so desired. I also agree that the damage to the Pentagon could not have been caused by a commercial airliner. The Government needed to use a drone to inflict the damage necessary to destroy the records surrounding the missing money that Rumsfeld had spoken of the day before. Tis is my humble opinion.
edit on 26-12-2010 by Mannie159 because: text not inserted



and is the only logical explanation. the world's biggest insurance job.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


Would you seriously want Pentagon information to be publicly assessable? Can you Google who's in the KGB?


Information about 'security'? Why the hell not? Tell me or even humor me as to how this would be a bad thing?
You mean if the terrorist knew the cameras were at point A, B and C....they would then know to attack point D?
Are you serious? Really?

Every single place (banks, police stations, courts, homes, schools, jails, airports, sidewalks, streets, hotels etc) WANTS us to know about their security cameras. It's a good (bad) thing I thought.

I can't in my wildest imagination conjurer up a scenario that would put them in peril if the public knew how many (not necessarily 'where) security camera were at the Pentagon!

Too bad we weren't looking for this information prior to 9-11 because I have a feeling, it was accessible back then. Oh how times have changed and how people have become so utterly amazingly accepting and complacent!

Now, back to the thread. Why aren't they showing us the other footage? Seems when people can't come up with an answer, they delve into a whole other arena of controversy thus side-stepping the original question to which, they haven't an answer.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 06:47 PM
link   
I know three people personally who watched the plane strike the building, 1) a vdot manager who was at the marriot facing the pentagon he was shaving looking out the window, 2) a plumber contracted out to do work at the pentagon was just about to enter the property, 3) one of the first 2 state troopers who responded to the scene who ended up with health problems because they were the first ones there.

the videos werent released right away because it was being analyzed. there priority wasnt trying to convince people that a plane hit the pentagon, remember all hell broke loose. so it sounds like everyone is saying the goverment staged a massive terrorist attack on our own soil. get real guys.......... this conspiracy holds no water at all



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
Question for all the cruise missile believers:


Do you believe that high level people actually sat around a table and planned this beforehand?

That they would hit the Pentagon with a crusie missile, and then simply pass it off as a plane, after having presumably done something with the real plane and its passengers.


Give me a scenario that seems believable to you and the rationale behind it.


Can you honestly look at the pictures and evidence and see where a 124' wide plane hit the Pentagon.??
Who knows what hit it but I don't think it was a boeing 757..



YES! - it it just what I would expect! - a relatively small hole, some wing impact damage, and a bunch of airplane debris scattered about, as for CCTV cameras capturing a plane moving past at 500mph - no I wouldnt be too hopefull about that!

How about the planning - it's been ten yrs now, you must have come up with some sort of scenario that makes a lick of sense?



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
Question for all the cruise missile believers:


Do you believe that high level people actually sat around a table and planned this beforehand?

That they would hit the Pentagon with a crusie missile, and then simply pass it off as a plane, after having presumably done something with the real plane and its passengers.


Give me a scenario that seems believable to you and the rationale behind it.


On the otherhand what's left is: This is nothing but the biggest coincidence in Government's history then.

Rumsfeld publicly tells the minions on September 10th that 2.3 TRILLION dollars are missing and by the grace of a government-god, the only area on the Pentagon that housed all the 'paperwork' for the missing trillions went [[[[[PUFF]]]]]] up in smoke and thus, forgotten.
Was this EVER looked into again? I think not. Was that also another coincidence? Out of sight, out of mind?

I owed AT&T 24 dollars on Sept 8th and sure as chit, the 20th of September rolled around and they still wanted their money.

Coincidence you say? That is even more ridiculous than a conspiracy.

Who planned this you ask? Let's look back at PNAC. They had over 10 years to pull this off. Government-military are capable of gigantic things m'friend even.......space wars. So....let's get beyond this.

Where are the video tapes?????



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by surfnow2
I know three people personally who watched the plane strike the building, 1) a vdot manager who was at the marriot facing the pentagon he was shaving looking out the window, 2) a plumber contracted out to do work at the pentagon was just about to enter the property, 3) one of the first 2 state troopers who responded to the scene who ended up with health problems because they were the first ones there.

the videos werent released right away because it was being analyzed. there priority wasnt trying to convince people that a plane hit the pentagon, remember all hell broke loose. so it sounds like everyone is saying the goverment staged a massive terrorist attack on our own soil. get real guys.......... this conspiracy holds no water at all


Analyze what? They knew what happened before noon-time that day.

Stop making crap up. They didn't release the tapes due to the trial or so they said.
Analyze....for 5 years.? You are too funny.
It took a FOIA to make them cough this piece of nothing up as it was.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood

Do you believe that high level people actually sat around a table and planned this beforehand?

That they would hit the Pentagon with a crusie missile, and then simply pass it off as a plane, after having presumably done something with the real plane and its passengers.


Give me a scenario that seems believable to you and the rationale behind it.


Ummmmm... yes. And to give a proper rationale from their perspective is monotonous since they cannot keep their own info straight. A scenario could be... A cruise missile was launched, NORAD was distracted by a drill to protect against what actually DID happen. The cruise missile DID hit the pentagon and penetrate 6 reinforcecd concrete walls 2 feet thick, and ironically ALL personnel were called away from that area of the pentagon hence, no bodies IN the pentagon, and no bodies of passengers found through 3 ring sections. After the impact, secret service, FBI, and high level civilians appear at the site and immediately gather the 'aircraft' debris and place it all in a box the size of a refrigerator and drive off. Dirt is brought in and dumped in the immediate area surrounding the impact site to bury forensic evidence (and the lack of skidmarks before impact). At the same time, agents are dispatched throughout the area to confiscate all video footage of the impact, and publish claims that a 160' wide object made a 12 foot hole, and melted all 180+ passengers. Then I would 'find the black box' and refuse to publish the contents of it, IF the crash did not vaporize everything on impact. Then I would do whatever is needed to collapse the impact site to hide the fact that the engines did not rupture the walls in the perimeters of the wall and the wings were not found. The engines were the hardest and heaviest parts of the plane, yet there were no signs of damage where the engines would have hit, nor were 2 engines identified or recovered. Only 1 engine, and it was too small to be a Boeing 757 engine, yet it was found inside the building and not outside in the location of 20' from the center of impact.

How's that for a scenario?



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 07:07 PM
link   
BBC World News service went live to the Pentagon pre-collapse with reports that a "small aircraft" had hit the building.

They cut to a live shot, and panned the damage. At that time, only windows were broken, and it looked more like someone had set off a bomb inside the Pentagon.

I remember it vividly, and I remember commenting to my friend that it appeared no aircraft was there.

I have never seen this footage since that day. I can still remember a woman in a beige jacket sat on the far edge of the sofa of about 6 people when they broke the news.
edit on 26-12-2010 by mirageofdeceit because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
136
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join