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.

 

Do you think the pentagon surveillance video was released by insiders trying to tell us something?

page: 3
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
oh sure, like I'm supposed to believe that the billions of dollars the pentagon has to throw around (so much so that 2.3 trillions went missing the day before 9/11) that they can't seem to afford a camera that is post-1930 technology?


No, you're supposed to believe the hundred or so eyewitnesses going about their day to day business who happened to be there on 9/11 and who all say it was a passenger jet that hit the Pentagon. They were there, and you weren't. Instead, you prefer to believe some idiot French homosexual (yes he's a homosexual, he openly admits it) who never even stepped foot in the US much less the Pentagon who invented the whole "cruise missile hit the Pentagon" bit to sell a bunch of books.

Would you mind terribly explaining that train of thought to me?




posted on May, 18 2011 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by GunzCoty
 


and have you seen this?
forum.prisonplanet.com...
scroll down to the fly under theory..
actually read the whole post.. you wont find a better critical thinker in the truth movement..
except perhaps bonez here on ATS..



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


eye witness testimony is conflicting with just about every aspect of the 9/11 issue. And way to bring someone's sexuality into the debate. Little by little we start to see the real good ol Dave emerge.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 08:33 PM
link   
I just have one small addition.

Remember, the Pentagon is the headquarters of the United States Department of Defense. As such, it is one of the most secure buildings in the world. It is covered in cameras on the inside, and out. If the official story is true, I have one very simple question:

  • Why is the only video released from a camera which captured frames just before the "whatever" hits the pentagon, and just after it hits. Surely there are more cameras which have captured images of the plane. If they wanted to shut up all of the conspiracy theories, they could simply release just one still frame from one of the many cameras which must have seen the plane. Why has nothing been released to show this?



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by renegadeS
 


pretty simple explanation..
take a look at the pre 911 photos of the Pentagon..
you wont find too many cameras on the roof, a few, but they are casino-type surveillance cameras..
probably black and white, with a very slow frame rate.. pan and tilt.. they do not point upwards and out.. the cameras are pointed downward to monitor
people.. yes people approaching.. what was to be feared before 911? some type of ground attack like maybe a truck bomb? thats why they were reinforcing the walls.. also the only cameras that would have captured the plane were ironically at the impact point..
also the Pentagon is just a mile or so from Reagan international, thus NO anti aircraft batteries on the roof as has been suggested before..
one more thing that seems to escape the discussion as soon as it is brought up: you cannot debunk the eye witnesses, too many were there and saw..



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by pccat
 

I dunno pccat. I know of schools and factories that, during the year 2001, had color cameras facing out in all directions from the building. I find it very hard to swallow the notion that the headquarters for the United States military had only a few low resolution, low frame-rate, "casino" like cameras.

Wouldn't it seem more probable that such a building would have several cameras and a full-time staff of security officers dedicated to watching them?

And while yes, I do agree with you that they would be pointed at a downward angle, as the security staff was not likely paid to cloud watch, the official story states that the plane skidded along the lawn before hitting the building, thus placing the aircraft on the ground, and likely in the field of one of the cameras. I find it unlikely that such an expansive area of the property surrounding the building would be not under surveillance.

However, even if I were to swallow that there were no cameras capable of capturing this on the pentagon, it is stated that a hotel and gas station in the area did have cameras which captured it, and that those videos were subsequently confiscated. Why not release just one or two frames from those videos?

They could very quickly shut all of us up with one still frame. Well.. maybe not all of us, I'm sure a few people would still find reason to complain. But most of us.
edit on 18-5-2011 by renegadeS because: Grammar.

edit on 18-5-2011 by renegadeS because: Spelling.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


eye witness testimony is conflicting with just about every aspect of the 9/11 issue. And way to bring someone's sexuality into the debate. Little by little we start to see the real good ol Dave emerge.


To which I will respond...

a) the only aspect the eyewitness testimony is conflicting with is your own conspiracy claims. To everyone else this would suggest that your're barking up the wrong tree with these conspiracy claims. There's only so far you can insist that you're right and the rest of the world is wrong before you have to start asking yourself whether you actually are wrong.

b) you should know that Thierry Meyssan is openly gay and is active in anti-homosexual discrimination. I'm not the one turning this into a human sexuality shtick. He is...or I should say, you are, since he's the one who invented the whole "cruise missile hit the Pentagon" story to begin with and you're the one trying to foist it onto others.

On that note Meyssan also thinks the Chechan massacre of those Russian school children was a CIA plot to take over Caspian sea oil, though how the heck murdering children would lead to taking over Caspian sea oil is as dingbat as his cruise missile at the Pentagon claim. THIS is the guy who's your spokesman?



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by renegadeS
 


Hi renegade, here is the vid from the double tree hotel..
you cant see much, but something going faster than the normal traffic hits the pentagon at about the halfway point in the vid.. looks like it is the tail section that you can see..
there is another one from the gas station that shows a shadow from the plane..
but I cant find it right now..





posted on May, 18 2011 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Again, like the other video, that only shows "something".

I would be very excited to see that video with the shadow, I hope you are able to find it.

Also, I hope you don't mistake me for someone who hardheadedly presumes that it wasn't a plane. I am simply of the school of thought that until some imperial evidence is shown, it is still an open question. I don't believe that it was a missile or a rocket or a fighter jet either, as I have not seen any evidence of those either.

I am simply at a point where I am able to say with full certainty that something hit the Pentagon, that a fireball followed, a hole existed, and a section of the building subsequently collapsed. And yes, the notion that the "something" was a plane is of a higher probability than it being something else due to the eye witness reports.

Also, I feel that I have sightly move this thread off-topic, I apologize for that, pccat, feel free to talk with me further via PM, we should probably let this thread return to its original topic of whether or not the video releases are by insiders trying to tell us something. To which I say... maybe.
edit on 18-5-2011 by renegadeS because: Returning the thread to its topic



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 11:25 PM
link   

it is stated that a hotel and gas station in the area did have cameras which captured it, and that those videos were subsequently confiscated. Why not release just one or two frames from those videos?



Citgo video
Doubletree video 1
Doubletree video 6
Doubletree video 9

Have fun watching.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 07:26 AM
link   
When it comes to the claims of hundreds of cameras, consider the security requirements for such an establishment.
The most likely events would be theft inside the building. Or possibly spying activity from within. Not planes flying across the grass.
So if you were in charge of setting up the video security you are going to install the cameras facing the interior doors and entrance ways. Not at the clouds or interstates.

Consider what they do at banks in the US. You only see the robbers at the teller’s window not walking across the parking lot. A bank robbery is a much more likely event than a plane hitting a building. And yet they don’t have cameras facing outside.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by renegadeS
Why is the only video released from a camera which captured frames just before the "whatever" hits the pentagon, and just after it hits. Surely there are more cameras which have captured images of the plane. If they wanted to shut up all of the conspiracy theories, they could simply release just one still frame from one of the many cameras which must have seen the plane. Why has nothing been released to show this?


Let me answer your question with another question...if there is some massive coverup, why on EARTH would these imagined conspirators of yours only release a photo of some blurry whitish thing rather than a crystal clear, immediately recognizable photo of the aircraft? More to the point, if you're of a mind to automatically dismiss all the eyewitness testimony and reports of wreckage all over the front lawn as being disinformation, then why should we believe you wouldn't do the same for any other photos they'd release?



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

I never made any statement about a cover-up. I also made no claims that it was anything other than an aircraft. Please make sure that you actually read my posts and do not instantly lump me in with claims that have been made by others.

I agree, if there "was" a cover-up, it would make it all the more believable to release a crystal clear image. However, if I've learned anything in my work with photo-manipulation, it's a hell of a lot easier to fake a blurry spec than highly in focus object. I can add a believable blurry "thing" to a picture a lot easier than I can add a picture of Godzilla.

In addition, I am not of a mind to automatically dismiss the eyewitness reports. As I stated in a previous post in this thread, the probability in my mind that it was an airplane is much larger than any other potential object as a direct result of the testimonies. I have made no claims to discount them or dismiss them. Again, please make sure you actually read MY posts.

I will say again, however, that this thread is not about if it was a plane or not, this thread was intended by its author to discuss the author's question, "Do you think the pentagon surveillance video was released by insiders trying to tell us something?". I would be more than happy to talk with you further in PM, GoodOlDave, or in another thread, but I do not want to de-rail this thread further.
edit on 19-5-2011 by renegadeS because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Baldryck


And no I did not see the wreckage of a plane, I saw a hole, I saw no damage to the walls at ll from where the engines would of hit, in fact where the wings and engines would of hit, even the windows were not broken, strange considering these engines weigh several tones and unlike the fuselage of a plane will not crumple upon impact. There were no bodies, the black box recording have never been released

And please for our reference, show examples of commercial aircraft crashing anywhere in the world where ALL the wreckage disappeared, where the engines were not found, where there were no bodies, in fact it has only ever happened twice in history, oddly enough this was both on the same day, the 9th of September 2001, just as trying to show how skyscrapers collapsing from a fire, only ever happened on one date 9/11


Example as requested I'm pretty sure they found more of a plane at the Pentagon than they found of ValuJet flight 592.



Sorry to burst your bubble, but from your own link




only 75% of the aircraft and the remains of only 37 passengers have been located. Fortunately, the CVR and FDR were found.


So they found 75% of the plane, hardly all missing, and considering that was in swamp land they did well to find that much

Ok actually an example where they didn't find anything please



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by PrinceDreamer

Originally posted by Baldryck


And no I did not see the wreckage of a plane, I saw a hole, I saw no damage to the walls at ll from where the engines would of hit, in fact where the wings and engines would of hit, even the windows were not broken, strange considering these engines weigh several tones and unlike the fuselage of a plane will not crumple upon impact. There were no bodies, the black box recording have never been released

And please for our reference, show examples of commercial aircraft crashing anywhere in the world where ALL the wreckage disappeared, where the engines were not found, where there were no bodies, in fact it has only ever happened twice in history, oddly enough this was both on the same day, the 9th of September 2001, just as trying to show how skyscrapers collapsing from a fire, only ever happened on one date 9/11


Example as requested I'm pretty sure they found more of a plane at the Pentagon than they found of ValuJet flight 592.



Sorry to burst your bubble, but from your own link




only 75% of the aircraft and the remains of only 37 passengers have been located. Fortunately, the CVR and FDR were found.


So they found 75% of the plane, hardly all missing, and considering that was in swamp land they did well to find that much

Ok actually an example where they didn't find anything please


Are you seriously suggesting NO aircraft wreckage was recovered at the Pentagon ?

Meantime, this is the crash site in Iran of a Tupolev 154, pretty much exactly the same size as a Boeing 757. Is there a huge amount of wreckage evident ?

news.bbc.co.uk...



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


No plane is in the video because the camera takes pictures at intervals. The tip in the wing is what your seeing I believe.

The wheels, and the turbines where found at the scene.

It was a plane.







 
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join