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.

 

Curious Pentagon Footage , What Are These Guys Saying ?

page: 6
14
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


WIthout forming some hypo or conspiracy, i wonder who those men were. Obviously having them wearing almost identical clothing would mean they had similar duties whatever they were. Peace be with them and their families.




posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhackerOnly the strangest stretch of imagination would see charred, blacked SKIN, and the insides of a person, as the skin has sloughed off, to reveal the expected color of cooked meat, inside....and call it "orange jumpsuits"!!!


You seem to be strangely and morbidly focused on what is obviously burned/charred flesh, while ignoring the fact that their clothing is still intact and does in fact appear to be orange in color.


edit on 1/21/1111 by NoAngel2u because: (no reason given)

edit on 1/21/1111 by NoAngel2u because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 

I think there was work going on in that part of the Pentagon during the period, but I'm not really up on this aspect of the unofficial 9/11 investigaton that we in the public have been forced by government complacency to undertake.

It could be as simple as a crew that was changing light bulbs, or painting or any number of routine maintenance style jobs.

RIP to all of the first victims who died in the US on 9/11. 9/11 truth is for them and for the country and the world. These crimes must not go uninvestigated and unpunished.


edit on 21-1-2011 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   
The National Geographic video was shot at the Capitol building right? Is it me or is something off about that press conference? Peter Goss is talking and a loud explosion is heard in the distance THAN an aircraft, sounds large and slow relatively speaking, flies overhead. Now this is one of 3 options, the C-130 instructed to visually identify Flight 77 or F-16s which were not on scene yet or the Pentagon was hit by something else and this plane is part of that operation. The Capitol building is 2.8 miles NE of the Pentagon.

OR

I am insane and that isn't what I think I heard, could be either.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by bphi1908
 

I heard a loud boom and then heard the sound of a jet. I assumed it was sonic boom and a fighter had entered the airspace near the Pentagon.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


I tended to agree with that assertion until I came across this 911timeline.net... While this is not anything new it does challenge that theory, if this timeline is accurate.



91) 9:36 a.m.: Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport instructs a military C130 aircraft that had just departed Andrews Air Force base to try to identify American Airlines Flight 77. The C130 reports it is a 767 and it is moving low and very fast.

92) 9:37 a.m.: American Airlines Flight 77 is lost from radar screens and impacts the western side of the Pentagon. The section of the Pentagon hit consists mainly of newly renovated, unoccupied offices. The Pentagon says American Airlines Flight 77 hits them at 9:37. Other published reports have American Airlines Flight 77 striking at 9:40 to 9:43; The New York Times even published 9:45 (see 9:24 a.m. # 75).

NORAD says the F-16�s from Langley were still 105 miles and 12 minutes away. This means their average flight speed was only 14.3% of their top speed in trying to intercept United Airlines Flight 175. If these F-16�s flew at top speed, they would have been there just after 9:37.

Langley is 130 miles from the Pentagon. F-16's have a top speed of 1500 MPH. Minus 105 miles left from 130 miles equals 25 miles covered in the 7 minutes from 9:30 take-off to 9:37. 60 minutes divided by 7 minutes equals 8.57, times this by the 25 miles covered, equals 214.3 MPH. divided by 1500 MPH equals 14.3% of their top speed. How could these two F-15�s possibly be going one seventh of their top speed in trying to intercept American Airlines Flight 77? Even the story about first flying to NYC does not account for this unbelievably slow speed because they got the message to redirect to Washington D.C. within a couple of minutes of take-off, and NYC and Washington D.C. are almost exactly the same direction (north) from Langley.


But it is just conjecture at this point unless we knew exactly when that press conference took place and it's exact location outside the Capitol building.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by bphi1908
 


From that link...this is the kind of thing that is seen often....people using the "data" and "specifications" that they read online, in this case some specifics about the "maximum" speed of the F-16, and then use incredible distort shenanigans, and very poor "logic" in order to draw inane "conclusions"...absent any real world reality at all:


Langley is 130 miles from the Pentagon. F-16's have a top speed of 1500 MPH. Minus 105 miles left from 130 miles equals 25 miles covered in the 7 minutes from 9:30 take-off to 9:37. 60 minutes divided by 7 minutes equals 8.57, times this by the 25 miles covered, equals 214.3 MPH. divided by 1500 MPH equals 14.3% of their top speed. How could these two F-15�s possibly be going one seventh of their top speed in trying to intercept American Airlines Flight 77? Even the story about first flying to NYC does not account for this unbelievably slow speed because they got the message to redirect to Washington D.C. within a couple of minutes of take-off, and NYC and Washington D.C. are almost exactly the same direction (north) from Langley.


That whole "dissertation" and attempt to "describe" anything about those events is pure hogwash....speculation that is wildly off the mark.

So, I would'nt trust many of those who claimed to have compiled a "timeline" when they do not understand the full complexities and circumstances. There are plenty of other sources that delineate the activities of any interceptors that day.

Not ALL of it is easy to find online, however. AND, too often, you have to wade through the mire and muck like that, above...very distracting.

A book by author Lynn Spencer (an airline pilot, so has good, solid perspective and understanding of the aviaiton aspects) titled "Touching History".

cleartheskies.com...


....In this riveting book, commercial pilot Lynn Spencer brilliantly brings that drama to pulse-quickening life. She went on a quest to interview the vast number of people caught on the front lines in an unprecedented air war in which thousands of commercial pilots with flights in the air, air traffic controllers, military commanders, and jet fighter pilots snapped into stirring action. Calling on their exceptional preparedness and unflinching readiness to put their lives on the line, they improvised a defense against a shocking threat the nature and extent of which they could have no comprehension as the events unfolded.

Her sources include hundreds of key players, from Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard Myers to the FAA's command chief, to the general in command of air defense for the United States, the controllers who tracked the hijacked flights, and the fighter pilot, who, with no weapons loaded on his jet, unquestioningly accepted an order to take down United 93 with his own plane.


Of course in regards to United 93, that F-16 never rendezvoused in time, before the hijackers put it in.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   
The man/witness is giving his name

colonel Chandler C. Crangle
USMC

someone should try and get an interview with this guy and ask him about that piece of debris.

Google his name, you will see he was moved to the pentagon in 1997.
edit on 1/22/2011 by VonDoomen because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 


The problem is, both sides are working on faith.

There is no direct evidence either way of what happened that would prove WHAT really hit the pentagon without a doubt. So we will never know, without using faith, what actualy hit the pentagon. There is ABSOLUTELY no evidence that could prove or disprove this.

Oh wait, what about those 70+ security camera tapes that were confiscated and never released. Wait, if those tapes corroborate the governments story, then why dont they release them?



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by VonDoomen
 


Tapes were never "confiscated". They were collected, in order to review for evidence, and then returned to owners. ALL of them. Why keep repeating the same "stories", and not bothering to check their veracity first??


Oh wait, what about those 70+ security camera tapes that were confiscated and never released.



The 84/ 85 figure for videos came about as the result of a FOIA request for videos showing the Pentagon impact. FBI Special Agent Jacqueline Maguire responded with the following point:

"...I subsequently searched a series of FBI evidence databases, including the FBI's Electronic Case File system and the FBI's Investigative Case Management System, and determined that the FBI possessed eighty-five (85) videotapes that might be potentially responsive to plaintiff's FOIA request. This determination was based on videotapes that had been submitted into FBI evidence, sent directly to the FBI laboratory in Quantico, Virginia, and/or obtained by the FBI's Washington Field Office."

The FBI are talking about 85 videos, but this is just the result of an initial search that includes (for example) all videos obtained by the Washington Field Office. If we move on from that then the numbers begin to fall dramatically.


The list is long....I could copy/paste, but instead invite you to go HERE instead. SO much of this "9/11" junk and false stories could be disposed of just by proper research, and the stopping of spreading the false rumors....


Summary, from the link above:


56 "of these videotapes did not show either the Pentagon building, the Pentagon crash site, or the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11."

Of the remaining 29 videotapes, 16 "did not show the Pentagon crash site and did not show the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon."

Of the 13 remaining tapes, 12 "only showed the Pentagon after the impact of Flight 77."

Only one tape showed the Pentagon impact: the Pentagon's own security camera footage, that would later be released.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   
At around the :40 sec mark a guy spells it out and say's"yea, last name Crngle(not Cringle), Marine Corp Staff."

If you google ASCC you come up with Army Service Component Command. If you search it by full name, Army Service Component Command, you come up with this...

One of three types of major commands, service component commands (ASCC) are primarily operational organizations that serve as Army components for combatant commands. An ASCC can be designated by the combatant commander as a joint forces land component command or joint task force.

I can't find anything searching Crndle. Maybe he meant Cringle, but he spelled out Crngle.

Anyway, it is kind of interesting. It's hard to say if it's off the plane or not. It sounds like they're just guessing to me. It could be just a piece of scrap metal that fell off alongside the road.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


56 "of these videotapes did not show either the Pentagon building, the Pentagon crash site, or the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11."

Of the remaining 29 videotapes, 16 "did not show the Pentagon crash site and did not show the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon."

Of the 13 remaining tapes, 12 "only showed the Pentagon after the impact of Flight 77."

Only one tape showed the Pentagon impact: the Pentagon's own security camera footage, that would later be released.


It is interesting that there are so many gullible people that believe this nonsense. Fact: The government tells you what they want you to know, as if they have no reason to lie.
Weed do you believe what you really post?

The interesting thing is it has now been proven that the government has lied to the American people about ever part of the events to what had occurred on 911, and you want the ATS readers to accept that the government is telling you the truth, on what was found on just the video tapes that were "confiscated" on 911. You want us to accept the governments’ word as religious truth and not question it.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Hey guys,im not new to ATS or this subject, i just havnt posted much on this site yet.
Anyhow cheers for the videos.
Ive researched quite abit about this subject like many others and i think too many things dont add up.
One thing Americans are known for is movies,among other things.
All the footage,pictures and text ive looked at regarding the Pentagon side of things,everything seems unrealistic and fake to say the least.

Just my opinion,Cheers.
edit on 22-1-2011 by BillyBoBBizWorth because: Fixing



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


Not very observant are you? Take a good look at the lapel of the body labelled 83? Note that there is a rank badge of a gold coloured Oak Leaf. That would denote Navy Lt Cmdr or Army/Air Force/Marine Major. Your orange is simply Khaki uniform burned and covered in ash/debris.

See list for ranks

www.sacred-texts.com...

TJ



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by tommyjo
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


Not very observant are you? Take a good look at the lapel of the body labelled 83? Note that there is a rank badge of a gold coloured Oak Leaf. That would denote Navy Lt Cmdr or Army/Air Force/Marine Major. Your orange is simply Khaki uniform burned and covered in ash/debris.

See list for ranks

www.sacred-texts.com...

TJ


I didn't see that either. More evidence those bodies were Pentagon staff not passengers?

There were Navy personal killed.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 08:46 AM
link   
Navy personnel? At the Pentagon??

This is what I love about some of the posters here. Above you have a poster swearing blind that these bodies are in orange jumpsuits, that they're inmates or undesirables of some sort, that the conspiracy has been unquestionably corroborated. And it's all utter nonsense.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Navy personnel? At the Pentagon??

This is what I love about some of the posters here. Above you have a poster swearing blind that these bodies are in orange jumpsuits, that they're inmates or undesirables of some sort, that the conspiracy has been unquestionably corroborated. And it's all utter nonsense.



WASHINGTON -- Navy commanders shifting warships around the world have been forced to make those moves without their Pentagon central command center, which was heavily damaged in Tuesday's attack.

www.sptimes.com...


WASHINGTON (NNS) -- A year after they were killed in the terrorist attacks that rocked the nation, the 42 U.S. Navy victims of the Pentagon attacks were remembered Wednesday as people who "died making a difference."




The Navy command center was hit by the attack.

What are you talking about? We are just making suggestions. The debunkers claim those pics are passengers without any proof, I'm just pointing out that there is doubt to their claim. We need facts here, not faith.
edit on 1/26/2011 by ANOK because: to add image



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
The Navy command center was hit by the attack.


Yeah, I know, I was bjoking. With respect, it's just not exactly a revelation that naval personnel might have been casualties at the pentagon.



What are you talking about? We are just making suggestions. The debunkers claim those pics are passengers without any proof, I'm just pointing out that there is doubt to their claim. We need facts here, not faith.
edit on 1/26/2011 by ANOK because: to add image


"The debunkers"? Who are they? And they all claim one thing, do they? I'm certainly not a truther and I have no idea whether they're employees or passengers.

But "we're just making suggestion"? You might be, but this guy



The images of the pentagon victims are wearing clothes right? 2 of them are wearing almost identical clothing right? Well these identical clothings also have identical colours right? therefore the two victims are wearing coloured jumpsuits. Why is this so damaging to your case?

I guess we hit a nerve here guys. Must mean something. The 2 men in the images from the pentagon are wearing orange jumpsuits.


seems pretty certain. He goes on to make a hypothesis that they are undesirables placed there on purpose. This is pure fantasy, constructed on a series of facts that only he finds self-evident. He is, in your own words, literally opearting on "faith" alone.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Why are you arguing with me about what someone else said?

All that matters to me is that there is doubt as to whether they are passengers, or not, as claimed by Weedy and others, the whole reason the discussion was raised. Weedy even claimed one was in an aircraft seat that only he can see. This is not the first thread that pic has been used, and claimed to be passengers by debunkers.

I know you're not a 'truther' which is why I didn't realise you were being sarcastic.
edit on 1/27/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



Weedy even claimed one was in an aircraft seat that only he can see.


Actually , I am the one who claims that .

And I still say that I can see a seat beneath the guy .




top topics



 
14
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join