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.

 

100% conclusive evidence that a plane did hit the pentagon.

page: 9
24
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   
what a load of bs.

especially liked the security cam - i personally saw no plane parts flying, the wings dived into the building ? don't buy this
try better next time




posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Whats with all these posts claiming to be 100% evidence?

I mean seriously, it is an awful display of arrogance.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   
Intredasting animation, and bonus points for not having a cheesy soundtrack

but it's far, far from conclusive evidence friend.

I'd like to see the same animators recreate the sequence of the plane's rapid descent and subsequent 'leveling off' at ground level



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Immortalgemini527
 


You make one good point. Your animation explains the all the damage with the light poles etc etc... however these is one HUGE problem.... There are many many witnesses who say the plane did not make the approach that your animation claims. There are many witnesses who claim the plane came from a different direction than what you video shows.

So are they all wrong? Is all the people who were there wrong and your video is correct?



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by indigothefish
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


that's why they disposed of ANY and ALL footage, correct?


We both know you're making that claim up out of your own abject paranoia. The Pentagon is like any other major office building- video cameras are going to be trained on high traffic areas, like building entrances, parking lots, and that security gate where the video everyone saw was taken, because that's where 99% of any anticipated trouble is going to take place. They're not going to point a video camera at every garbage can, speed sign, and blank wall simply for the sake of videotaping speed signs, blank walls and garbage cans. Listening to you people, you'd think all 80+ cameras were aimed at that one exact spot. As for any video taken from nearby businesses, that's private property and the gov't can't release it.

Tell me something, there have been plenty of photographs released showing aircraft wreckage strewn all over the lawn of the Pentagon (including that large chunk from the fuselage) and almost to a man the truthers insist those photos are faked. What could possibly be in any impact photographs that you people wouldn't likewise insist was faked or staged?
edit on 21-6-2011 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Seriously op, do you believe this cartoon scenario

Do you still believe in the Easter bunny and Santa Clause as well.


Cartoon etiquette may work for the believing individuals still sitting in Plato's "cave scenario," but for me i have been out of them chained seats and out of that cave along time ago thus, this synopsis of yours is so easy to discredit that a cave man could do it



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by pajoly
 


I was there, I saw the plane, and so did HUNDREDS of people, all of which are on record of saying "It was a plane" But, the people that WANT to believe it was a missile will cherry pick the folks that are confused at type of plane.

Myself and 2 other co-workers were there, we saw it, it was a commercial jet! period!

There are ZERO "life points" for finding a conspiracy in everything.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


ALSO, why would these cameras be pointed at the pentagon? The businesses would have had the cameras pointed at their OWN entrances. Logic goes out the window when speaking of 9/11.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShaunHatfield
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


ALSO, why would these cameras be pointed at the pentagon? The businesses would have had the cameras pointed at their OWN entrances. Logic goes out the window when speaking of 9/11.



They weren't pointing at the Pentagon. They were pointing at something nearby that would be critical to their own establishments (I.E. their own parking lots). It would just be the case that the Pentagon might have been in the background the same way the impact area was in the background of the security gate camera. From what I'm hearing, none of the outlying businesses captured any worthwhile footage, so the reason why no more footage had been released is obvious.

Seriously, what good would it do you to see a bunch of people congregating in a parking lot somewhere looking at something off camera?



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   
whilst i agree that the video cgi animation does explain one perspective of the 'evidence'.
surely they could have saved taxpayers money and just released video footage from any one of the cctv cameras that was confiscated that day.
the fish eye security camera was a rubbish angle and proved nothing - if indeed the event was as explained and a plane hit as demonstrated and that's some low level flying skills, why don't they release some better footage - here's a clue, it don't exist......
edit on 21-6-2011 by digitalf because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by ShaunHatfield
 


Just because you and a bunch of people SAW a plane, DOES NOT mean that that's what hit the Pentagon. Did you SEE the plane HIT the Pentagon?

No, you saw it flying in the air, then you heard the explosion. You saw what you were supposed to see. And came to the conclusion that you we're supposed to come to.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShaunHatfield
reply to post by pajoly
 


I was there, I saw the plane, and so did HUNDREDS of people, all of which are on record of saying "It was a plane" But, the people that WANT to believe it was a missile will cherry pick the folks that are confused at type of plane.

Myself and 2 other co-workers were there, we saw it, it was a commercial jet! period!

There are ZERO "life points" for finding a conspiracy in everything.


I'd like to ask you, where did you see the plane? Was it on the North or South side of the Citgo building?



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


My mistake, I didnt clarify.. I was responding to you, but agreeing with you.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by pajoly
 


Nice try! Alexandria is to far away from the Pentagon for a plane to "come right over his head" not to mention it doesn't follow the supposed flight path. However, it is your story so tell it how you see fit!



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I have an extremely hard time believing that the building with the most CCTV cameras in the world only has one crappy camera which videotaped the impact. And that crappy camera footage just happened to exclude the most crucial part of the video, when the plane that hit the Pentagon was visible. Even if there was another camera angle which didn't show the impact, but just showed the 757 heading towards the Pentagon, I would be satisfied, and considering that the Pentagon has the most CCTV cameras in the world one would think that another camera would capture even a glimpse of the 757, but nope. That is just plain sketchy. If you can trust the governments official story which is filled with flaws while they simultaneously withhold the video evidence which would support their flawed story of an unexperienced pilot pulling off a ~360* turn then flying just feet above the ground, practically threading a needle, into the part of the Pentagon which was coincidentally undergoing renovations, then you are either in denial that your government would do such a thing or you're just plain ignorant IMO.
edit on 21-6-2011 by TupacShakur because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   
the way the lamp posts are taken out and the many eyewitnesses point to a plane striking the pentagon, could it have been flown with remote control like a drone, possibly, would account for the difficult flying maneuver and inexperienced pilot



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   
I think that the video "pentagonstrike" on their website at www.pentagonstrike.co.uk... is much better music and also nearer the truth. If the only security camera was the one that has a post in the way haha as if!! Why don't they borrow the ones from the nearby petrol station and highway cameras and make an animation of what is on one of those. I'll tell you why, because they were taken within minutes so that nobody could watch them. lmao



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Immortalgemini527
 


Now the plane is doing flips a mere 36" from the impact site.................

Not to get into the concept of physics, but it is just not possible my friend!

We all struggle with these topics; side-stepping the principles of physics is a natural act!!



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Then why did the FBI/CIA immediately confiscate the recording tapes from stores that were recording around the Pentagon? It's suspicious isn't it.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by HazyChestNutz
Then why did the FBI/CIA immediately confiscate the recording tapes from stores that were recording around the Pentagon? It's suspicious isn't it.


Why was it suspicious? Besides it was well known at the time that terrorists loved to film their handywork and there may have been the possibility that accomplices were stationed at advantageous positions to witness or record the event. Nearby CCTV recording may have caught them on tape.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join