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.

 

What must have happened at the Pentagon on 9/11

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by budaruskie
reply to post by FDNY343
 


If you want to purposefully miss the entire point of the analogy, I certainly can't stop you. Why don't you try to answer any of the questions instead?


I did. If you could do it at 733 FPS you most likely could get away. Too bad the perps didn't care to flee.

Why don't they release the tapes? Is that one of your questions?

I'll tell you a few reasons.

1-The tapes that belong to other companies re not property of the USG. They belong to a private company. They do not have the right under intellectual property laws to release them.

2- The ones in the Pentagon being released is simple really. Release those, and the location of the cameras can be triangulated. Security camera placement is usually classified. You can also figure out the capabilities of the cameras using their video. You may also be able to find out the manufacturer of the cameras too.

Seems silly to you?

Submarine grocery bills are HIGHLY classified. So are the suppliers. That doesn't make sense does it? Well, it's quite simple really. You could estimate how long a sub will be gone based on the food bills. You could then estimate the average speed, and get a general idea of where they are going.

Now, makes sense now, doesn't it. I surely hope so.




posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 11:41 PM
link   
My theory is that, IF, all 4 flights took off as noted, then #11 and #175, dropped off radar momentarily while remote controlled drones took their places. (We have heard that the skies were filled with planes.) The drones could have had more explosives, and airplanes parts to send flying earthbound. They might even have been operated from Bldg #7, thus the need to destry 7's evidence. IF there were passengers who died or who were kept alive, they were flown to a "meeting place'.
....and when flight 77 dropped off radar momentarily, another drone took it's place for a 'flyover' when a missile struck the Pentagon....right where the money wasn't..... and 77 flew to the "meeting place".
---but Flight #93 seemed to be the odd ball. Not on time, no debris etc and very well could have been the meeting place...in Cleveland Airport, to whisk all the passengers, on the 'inside', to a safe place, on what? Delta 89?

MEANWHILE ALL 4 COMMUTER JETS, 11, 175, 77, AND 93 WENT ON THEIR MERRY WAY TO SOMEPLACE TO BE DESTROYED....now or a couple of years later, whatever suited the fancy of the conspirators!--on radar or off

Just a simple explanation as to why there is no debris, why there are no aircraft parts, bodies and luggage or PICTURES!
edit on 2-2-2011 by canadiansenior70 because: spelling



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 02:10 AM
link   
reply to post by canadiansenior70
 


It must be very liberating when you can think up scenarios without being constrained by any facts or evidence.

But why oh why do you and other truthers keep posting that there was no plane debris or body parts when pictures are posted on here all the time ?

As this thread is about the Pentagon here are some pics taken inside of plane wreckage :-

www.rense.com...

Bearing in mind this area was a blazing inferno, any ideas as to how it got there ?



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 02:25 AM
link   
What really happened is they told Bumfeild to release the info to Congress about the missing 2 Trillion Dollars, the following day, they flew a missle into the Pentagon, right where the info was housed that had the records on who got the missing money.

They got everything that day Open Check book and Control, they know how stupid the American People are, at least most of them.

Now there you go all you Truthers, everything is not a Comspiracy, some things are simply Fact.
edit on 3-2-2011 by googolplex because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Alfie, do you have ANY other interest in life other than 9/11 threads??
Checking a members post is sometimes good..

You post in NO other threads, only 9/11...

I think you seriously need another interest..



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 04:18 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


You obviously can't see the irony in advising me to get a life when you put time to researching my posting history and making an off topic and pointless post about it.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by backinblack
 


You obviously can't see the irony in advising me to get a life when you put time to researching my posting history and making an off topic and pointless post about it.



Not off topic at all..
It pays to know what kind of person you're debating..
Obviously you are devoted to the OS in the extreme...



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Alfie, do you have ANY other interest in life other than 9/11 threads??
Checking a members post is sometimes good..

You post in NO other threads, only 9/11...

I think you seriously need another interest..


Maybe that is what interests him?

(I haven't posted elsewhere either BTW. Why don't you go ahead and accuse myself and Alfie of being paid government shills. That's usually the next step)



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by FDNY343
 



Maybe that is what interests him?

(I haven't posted elsewhere either BTW. Why don't you go ahead and accuse myself and Alfie of being paid government shills. That's usually the next step)


Why would I bother?
Actions speak louder than words and your confessed actions speak volumes..
ATSers are smart enough to make up their own minds



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Originally posted by FDNY343



Why don't they release the tapes? Is that one of your questions?

I'll tell you a few reasons.

1-The tapes that belong to other companies re not property of the USG. They belong to a private company. They do not have the right under intellectual property laws to release them.

2- The ones in the Pentagon being released is simple really. Release those, and the location of the cameras can be triangulated. Security camera placement is usually classified. You can also figure out the capabilities of the cameras using their video. You may also be able to find out the manufacturer of the cameras too.

Seems silly to you?

Submarine grocery bills are HIGHLY classified. So are the suppliers. That doesn't make sense does it? Well, it's quite simple really. You could estimate how long a sub will be gone based on the food bills. You could then estimate the average speed, and get a general idea of where they are going.

Now, makes sense now, doesn't it. I surely hope so.


Yes, this seems very silly to me. I can actually understand classifying submarine grocery bills, but as you pointed out before, this is a very bad analogy. The Federal gov't can basically do anything it wants, especially when it comes to an act of war or terrorism, and you cannot convince me that those companies that own tapes that should have planes on them wouldn't allow them to be shown to the public, that's ridiculous. The truth is, the gov't took the tapes and never gave them back...so they certainly didn't ask the owners what they wanted to do with them. As far as "triangulating positions of security cameras" like I said before, GOOGLE CAMERAS ON PENTAGON and you will see pictures of the cameras, so their position is already known. That is frankly one of the lamest excuses I've ever heard dreamed up on this site. BTW if you guys haven't noticed, you've gone from there were no cameras, to there are cameras but they didn't see it, to they saw it but the positions of the cameras is so secret they can't release the footage. Common sense is defeating these arguments.

How about a real possibility. One where, maybe the U.S. gov't is not at the pinnacle of the power structure. Maybe the gov't wants to release the tapes but some inside or outside force won't allow it. I'm looking for possible reasons or scenarios where anyone having irrefutable evidence that essentially proves their case would choose not to show it to anyone. This is a pivotal issue and must be addressed by OS supporters because its a grand canyon size hole in logical reasoning.

Think of it like this. Say you are at your house and there are known security cameras at your house and your neighbors house alike. One day, out of the blue, your house burns down and kills your family except you. If your first thought was to immediately gather all of the footage of the event and hide it, don't you think people would immediately start to suspect something. Then, you go on to tell the police that something incredible happened that defies logical reasoning and physical laws and that you have very little if any evidence to support your claim. Don't you think the cops would immediately want to see the tapes? Who would be their #1 suspect in a scenario like this? In case you can't wrap your mind around this analogy, the public is represented by the cops in this scenario.
edit on 2/3/2011 by budaruskie because: Spelling



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by budaruskie
Yes, this seems very silly to me. I can actually understand classifying submarine grocery bills, but as you pointed out before, this is a very bad analogy. The Federal gov't can basically do anything it wants, especially when it comes to an act of war or terrorism, and you cannot convince me that those companies that own tapes that should have planes on them wouldn't allow them to be shown to the public, that's ridiculous. The truth is, the gov't took the tapes and never gave them back...so they certainly didn't ask the owners what they wanted to do with them. As far as "triangulating positions of security cameras" like I said before, GOOGLE CAMERAS ON PENTAGON and you will see pictures of the cameras, so their position is already known. That is frankly one of the lamest excuses I've ever heard dreamed up on this site. BTW if you guys haven't noticed, you've gone from there were no cameras, to there are cameras but they didn't see it, to they saw it but the positions of the cameras is so secret they can't release the footage. Common sense is defeating these arguments.


Well in that case, since by your admission you know where all the cameras were and by your admission you know in which direction the cameras were aimed at, it should be an easy matter for you truthers to show which camera would have been able to record the impact.

It disgusts me to no end over the unrepentent dishonesty the truther movement is wallowing in, in the defense of their conspiracy claims. They scream HUNDREDS OF CAMERAS when it's blatantly obvious to any thinking person that the cameras weren't all trained at the impact area, but throughout the entire perimeter of the Pentagon, and simply seeing footage of a bunch of people standing in a parking lot looking at something off camera will be useless to anyone. They scream THEY CONFISCATED STORE VIDEO which is idiotic- most surveilance video nowadays is stored electronically to an optical disk drive, so if they "confiscated it" they would need to take the whole optical disk drive. What they did was take a copy of the optical disk. This video is the property of the respective merchants so the gov't doesnt have the legal authority to release it.

All this is patently phony anyway since the Pentagon was in the middle of an industrial park and right next to TWO highways, so hundreds of eyewitnesses specifically saw that it was a passenger jet that hit the building....and yet the truthers refuse to accept any of their eyewitness accounts as legitimate. This is an incredible double standard, seeing how reliable they consider any eyewitness acounts that appear to support their conspiracy claims elsewhere.

This "we want to see the video" bit is nothing but a children's game they're playing to provide an excuse for why they shouldn't have to give up their ridiculous conspiracy stories. If such people are going to dismiss everything having been released so far as "gov't disinformation in knee jerk reflex then they will certainly NOT accept any futher video even if it does exist. Who here disagrees, raise your hand.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by budaruskie
Originally posted by FDNY343



Why don't they release the tapes? Is that one of your questions?

I'll tell you a few reasons.

1-The tapes that belong to other companies re not property of the USG. They belong to a private company. They do not have the right under intellectual property laws to release them.

2- The ones in the Pentagon being released is simple really. Release those, and the location of the cameras can be triangulated. Security camera placement is usually classified. You can also figure out the capabilities of the cameras using their video. You may also be able to find out the manufacturer of the cameras too.

Seems silly to you?

Submarine grocery bills are HIGHLY classified. So are the suppliers. That doesn't make sense does it? Well, it's quite simple really. You could estimate how long a sub will be gone based on the food bills. You could then estimate the average speed, and get a general idea of where they are going.

Now, makes sense now, doesn't it. I surely hope so.


Yes, this seems very silly to me. I can actually understand classifying submarine grocery bills, but as you pointed out before, this is a very bad analogy. The Federal gov't can basically do anything it wants, especially when it comes to an act of war or terrorism, and you cannot convince me that those companies that own tapes that should have planes on them wouldn't allow them to be shown to the public, that's ridiculous. The truth is, the gov't took the tapes and never gave them back...so they certainly didn't ask the owners what they wanted to do with them. As far as "triangulating positions of security cameras" like I said before, GOOGLE CAMERAS ON PENTAGON and you will see pictures of the cameras, so their position is already known. That is frankly one of the lamest excuses I've ever heard dreamed up on this site. BTW if you guys haven't noticed, you've gone from there were no cameras, to there are cameras but they didn't see it, to they saw it but the positions of the cameras is so secret they can't release the footage. Common sense is defeating these arguments.

How about a real possibility. One where, maybe the U.S. gov't is not at the pinnacle of the power structure. Maybe the gov't wants to release the tapes but some inside or outside force won't allow it. I'm looking for possible reasons or scenarios where anyone having irrefutable evidence that essentially proves their case would choose not to show it to anyone. This is a pivotal issue and must be addressed by OS supporters because its a grand canyon size hole in logical reasoning.

Think of it like this. Say you are at your house and there are known security cameras at your house and your neighbors house alike. One day, out of the blue, your house burns down and kills your family except you. If your first thought was to immediately gather all of the footage of the event and hide it, don't you think people would immediately start to suspect something. Then, you go on to tell the police that something incredible happened that defies logical reasoning and physical laws and that you have very little if any evidence to support your claim. Don't you think the cops would immediately want to see the tapes? Who would be their #1 suspect in a scenario like this? In case you can't wrap your mind around this analogy, the public is represented by the cops in this scenario.
edit on 2/3/2011 by budaruskie because: Spelling


Google-Earth has x-ray also? Cool!!



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by budaruskie
 



How about a real possibility. One where, maybe the U.S. gov't is not at the pinnacle of the power structure. Maybe the gov't wants to release the tapes but some inside or outside force won't allow it. I'm looking for possible reasons or scenarios where anyone having irrefutable evidence that essentially proves their case would choose not to show it to anyone. This is a pivotal issue and must be addressed by OS supporters because its a grand canyon size hole in logical reasoning.


Yes, of course all us "OS supporters" realize the glaring problem of explaining the reason the nasty old gubmint won't let you see something THAT ONLY EXIST IN YOUR IMAGINATION!!



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by canadiansenior70
 


It must be very liberating when you can think up scenarios without being constrained by any facts or evidence.

But why oh why do you and other truthers keep posting that there was no plane debris or body parts when pictures are posted on here all the time ?

As this thread is about the Pentagon here are some pics taken inside of plane wreckage :-

www.rense.com...

Bearing in mind this area was a blazing inferno, any ideas as to how it got there ?


Most links don't work---too much hogwash I suspect--and any of the those little parts could have already been in place.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Why are all of you refusing to see the obvious logic of providing evidence to prove your case. You certainly never miss the opportunity to demand it from a "truther", but when the tables are turned you choose only to insult or deflect. I've been careful not to implicate the gov't as culpable in the attack, but how can you possibly say they don't have the footage? Doesn't it make sense that if they didn't have the footage, they would show it just to prove that the footage isn't sufficient? You all know this is a perfectly sensible request that as of right now has no perfectly sensible answer...other than the tapes show something different than we are being told. That is exactly why I'm giving you all the opportunity to provide an alternative explanation, but you refuse to do so.

I am not discounting the eyewitness testimony, but you are not acknowledging the fact that different people claim to have seen different planes in different places, etc. The fact that all of the "evidence" collected at the "crash site" that "proves" it was the plane they claim it to be is small enough to be moved by 1-2 people. That doesn't mean that it doesn't count or exist, but it certainly raises some reasonable doubt. Doubt, that could easily be squashed with one video of the plane. I'm not trying to play games with all of you, I'm trying to pose a perfectly reasonable question in hopes that you will reasonably try to answer it. Unfortunately, you all just want to insult or argue with me about something else as to avoid the question at hand. The evidence not existing IS possible, but extremely unlikely...as unlikely that someone with no experience flying that class of airplane could fly it in excess of all known capabilities and execute maneuvers that known experienced pilots say are impossible or nearly impossible. It could happen, but its clearly not the most likely explanation and once again, a video could easily answer this question or at least part of it.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by budaruskie
 



Why are all of you refusing to see the obvious logic of providing evidence to prove your case.

Because no one can figure how to PROVE to you that something you think exist, DOESN'T EXIST.

You certainly never miss the opportunity to demand it from a "truther", but when the tables are turned you choose only to insult or deflect.

Whenever a "truther" makes a positive, assertive statement, evidence may be requested. Like how you insist that recordings of the plane striking the building exist, yet you cannot present any substantiating evidence, in fact your only evidence is that no one can prove a negative.

I've been careful not to implicate the gov't as culpable in the attack, but how can you possibly say they don't have the footage?

They don't have it.

Doesn't it make sense that if they didn't have the footage, they would show it just to prove that the footage isn't sufficient?

No, that makes no sense whatsoever.

You all know this is a perfectly sensible request that as of right now has no perfectly sensible answer...other than the tapes show something different than we are being told.

Or they don't exist!! We still haven't moved beyond that one yet.

That is exactly why I'm giving you all the opportunity to provide an alternative explanation, but you refuse to do so.

Opportunity appreciated. The tapes don't exist. Opportunity returned.

I am not discounting the eyewitness testimony, but you are not acknowledging the fact that different people claim to have seen different planes in different places, etc.

In other words, you're discounting the witness.

The fact that all of the "evidence" collected at the "crash site" that "proves" it was the plane they claim it to be is small enough to be moved by 1-2 people.

You realize, of course, that the entirety of that plane and its cargo, with the exception of some of the flammable materials, was almost wholly contained within the building. You're confusing the photos you saw with whole of reality which generally exceeds the limits of images found on Google.

That doesn't mean that it doesn't count or exist, but it certainly raises some reasonable doubt. Doubt, that could easily be squashed with one video of the plane.

Doubt? Yes. Reasonable? No.

I'm not trying to play games with all of you, I'm trying to pose a perfectly reasonable question in hopes that you will reasonably try to answer it.

Yet you don't seem to be able to hear the perfectly reasonable answer - just because you think something SHOULD exist DOES NOT mean it exist.

Unfortunately, you all just want to insult or argue with me about something else as to avoid the question at hand.

I am sorry you feel that way. But really. It does not exist, all wishful thinking aside.

The evidence not existing IS possible, but extremely unlikely

Huh? The possiblity of non existance. And exactly what are the odds?

...as unlikely that someone with no experience flying that class of airplane could fly it in excess of all known capabilities and execute maneuvers that known experienced pilots say are impossible or nearly impossible. It could happen, but its clearly not the most likely explanation and once again, a video could easily answer this question or at least part of it.

Different subject. But it does bring up an interesting point previously touched upon. You assert that the plane was flown in excess of all known capabilites - that is a positive assertion. Can you provide evidence? Or are you conveying someone else's opinion?



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by googolplex
What really happened is they told Bumfeild to release the info to Congress about the missing 2 Trillion Dollars, the following day, they flew a missle into the Pentagon, right where the info was housed that had the records on who got the missing money.

They got everything that day Open Check book and Control, they know how stupid the American People are, at least most of them.

Now there you go all you Truthers, everything is not a Comspiracy, some things are simply Fact.
edit on 3-2-2011 by googolplex because: (no reason given)


To me that seems a bit like committing a murder, admitting it to everybody, and then staging an enormous and cripplingly expensive car crash in the hopes that people will simply forget you owned up in the first place.

Why not simply omit to mention your culpability in the first place? That would kind of make more sense.

It must be especially galling to the conspirators that they had to pay back the vast majority of the money anyway, and nobody really forgot about it. They'll presumably think twice before planning another 9/11.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Since you have done such a fine job of refuting my post line by line, I feel its only polite to respond...so let's play the game.


Because no one can figure how to PROVE to you that something you think exist, DOESN'T EXIST


Can we agree that there were cameras in and around the Pentagon complex that had at least a reasonable chance of catching the plane on camera? I've heard in different videos reports of as many as 86 cameras in the area. If you are going to respond by telling me the cameras didn't exist, then explain why they can be seen in several images. Here are some.







Is it possible they didn't catch a plane on video, yes, but why not prove that by showing the video. Not to mention the infamous security camera shots that did point directly at the point of impact as well as the one from the hotel that do not show a 757? Must I also post those? Fine both are here.



Whenever a "truther" makes a positive, assertive statement, evidence may be requested. Like how you insist that recordings of the plane striking the building exist, yet you cannot present any substantiating evidence, in fact your only evidence is that no one can prove a negative.


Right, I cannot present that evidence because THE GOV'T HASN'T RELEASED IT!! If you haven't noticed, THAT'S THE ENTIRE POINT I'M MAKING!! The million dollar question is WHY HAVEN'T THEY RELEASED THEM? You say they don't exist, I see cameras, I say the video does exist. Why is that not a reasonable conclusion? Why do you think its reasonable that cameras that certainly did exist, don't have video footage?


In other words, you're discounting the witness.


How is pointing out the FACT that there are different versions of events depending on which eyewitness you ask considered discounting them? It just means that you have to give one eyewitness more credibility than another in order to believe any version of events, and I'm not able to do that. So, I take all of them at their word and believe they are telling the truth. However, that still leave grey areas and questions unanswered. How is this reasoning flawed?


You realize, of course, that the entirety of that plane and its cargo, with the exception of some of the flammable materials, was almost wholly contained within the building. You're confusing the photos you saw with whole of reality which generally exceeds the limits of images found on Google.


No, of course, I do not realize that. As you said before when someone makes a positive, assertive statement, evidence may be requested. So far, you have not provided any and you may consider this my request.


You assert that the plane was flown in excess of all known capabilites - that is a positive assertion. Can you provide evidence? Or are you conveying someone else's opinion?





There, I have done my best to answer your questions. Please, if you are going to reply, do so in regards to the entire post and don't just focus on one statement or what you think I think about this or that...and do so respectfully as I have.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by budaruskie
The Federal gov't can basically do anything it wants





Maybe the gov't wants to release the tapes but some inside or outside force won't allow it


So the government can do anything it wants except that it can't?

I'm not sure that this is particularly logical.
edit on 3-2-2011 by TrickoftheShade because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 07:19 PM
link   


3. The USA is too poor to spend money on some unnecessary hi-tech air defense systems for some regular office building.

..so maybe they should take back their soldiers from 177 countries home, then?
More - they could realize, after some time, that hi-tech air defence system is not neccessary anymore?
Side effect, for sure - many unemployed people, but, some of them could make paper-mache UFO's and sell their REAL UFO movies on forums, then. Rest could write books about 2012 or sth.
edit on 3-2-2011 by potential_problem because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join