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.

 

The 911 hit on the Pentagon ?

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by userid1
 
Thanks, Al. No, nothing meaningful, just topical. My bad. Will try not to try your patience again.
edit on 19-9-2011 by dillweed because: wrong name




posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by dillweed
 


Frank?

Topical?



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Haxsaw
Yeah, the official story is pretty lame to say the least if you ask me, would be nice to see a real investigation done.


It wouldn't work, for two reasons...

A) for a "real" investigation to be done you'd first have to decide what the definition of a "real" investigator is first, and up until now, the conspiracy people have submitted such an unrealistic list of criteria that there literally is no such thing as an investigator independent enough to give an unbiased assessment and still have the credentials to do their job. FAA crash site forensics experts are "tainted", NATO and NORAD officials are "secret agents", MIT and Perdue physics experts have "gov't connections", witnesses are "planted" and so on, while characters like Dylan Avery and Alex Jones not only have zero credentials to do any technical research, they are anything but independently minded, especially when the bulk of their income comes directly from people buying their conspiracy knicknacks. How many crash sites has David Ray Griffin examined, exactly?

B) The 9/11 conspiracy theorists AREN'T looking for honest answers, regardless of what they claim. They're looking to "prove" what they themselves believe to be true, and I haven't met two conspiracy people who believe the exact same things. This person thinks the towers were brought down by controlled demolitions while that person thinks it was lasers from outer space. This person thinks the gov't was behind it while that person thinks the Jews were behind it. This person thinks the towers were hti by remote control planes while that person thinks they didn't exist to begin with. And so on and so forth. If this independent investigation didn't rubber stamp their pet conspiracy theories they wouldn simply dismiss their findings just as they did the first investigation. If it were found that controlled demolitions really did bring the towers down, who here seriously things the "nukes in the basement" people are going to accept it, raise your hands.

Either way, the problem isn't with the investigations. The problem is with the conspiracy people muddying the waters for their political agenda.



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Haxsaw

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli
The intelligence community is tasked with discovering adversary intentions and capabilities, not placing security cameras all over office buildings for the unlikely event that someone might drive an airplane into them.


You are joking right?

No, I'm not joking. You have no idea what the intelligence community is or does if you think it runs the Pentagon's external cameras, should run the Pentagon's external cameras, or would run the Pentagon's external cameras in the current (or 2001) legal and budgetary regime.


the cameras wouldnt just be there waiting for a plane to hit the building, seriously lol. Do you think every camera the government has put up is there waiting for planes to hit buildings?

No, but truthers seem to think that. Why else would they expect to find a camera pointing at an empty lawn outside an office building?


come on use your head before you type such rubbish, there are mutliple reasons why the pentagon should be under 24hr surveillance with high-tech equipment(as it no doubt was at the time).

Name one reason the Pentagon would surveil an empty lawn. One that doesn't involve ninjas or something you saw in a Mission Impossible movie.


I'm pretty sure being " tasked with discovering adversary intentions and capabilities" would include putting the heart of the American military under constant high-tech survillance.

No, it doesn't. Force protection is not intelligence. Intelligence agencies have no force protection responsibilities for non-IC agencies. That's why Pentagon surveillance is handled by the Pentagon Force Protection Agency, not an intelligence agency. If you were the DNI and you tried to spend NIP dollars on watching the western lawn of a DOD office building because of an unspecified non-threat, you'd be asked to retire.


One hint for you, stay away from work in the intelligence field, it's not for you.

Ha ha ha.



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   
I’m still waiting for someone to show me an example of security cameras pointing up at the sky



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


Not really a security camera

Artist Wolfgang Staehle webcam of the Manhattan skyline - picture taken every 4 seconds

Captured American 11 approach and impact on North Tower

www.youtube.com...

The conspiracy loons have already proclaimed it a fake So even if clear footage of American 77 existed would
still deny it.....



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by fnpmitchreturns
 


For one thing, if any of you conspiracy theorists did any kind of research, instead of just sitting at your P.C. or laptop, or other device making ignorant accusations, you would discover that REAL witnesses of the Pentagon event actually saw an AIRPLANE, not a missile, fly into the Pentagon.

And second, if you were in charge of national security, and if you had video or stills of one of your most guarded buildings, would you want your potential enemies getting that video or pics? So anyone with half as much brain power more than it takes to make hollow accusations can analyze them for a future event?

Look, just think for yourself, put yourself into the boots of the government.

Do I believe that our government hides things from us?

Yes.

Do I think they do this for security reasons?

Yes.

Do I think that everything that I do not understand is a conspiracy, or alien?

No. I'm not that ignorant.

Be objective, not ignorant. Don't ignore your own thoughts and feelings. Look at things from every possible angle, and from every pair of shoes involved in an event.

It would be an interesting fantasy to think that all these conspiracies might be true. But they are just that FANTASY!!!



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by roughycannon
 
OK, Smarty Pants.....want to send some active links????



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   
I wasn't sure about the pentagon and the only video released to date has a split second image of something and then a BIG explosion. I have looked at this video over and over and over and over, but just can't see a plane.

However, if it was plane, you then have to ask the question why Cheney gave the stand down order, when he was receiving reports of how far out the hi-jacked plane was from Washington? Why didn't he order the plane to be shot down, particularly as he was aware that the planes had already gone into the Towers?

Also Rumsfeld was holding a meeting, in the Pentagon, with the Military Top Brass. Discussing the possibility of a terrorist Attack in the U.S and was advocating an increase in the Defence Budget, at the very time the plane hit the Pentagon.

So many coincidences on the day. That's why this will never go away. Whether it was intentional or not, Cheney was definitley complicit in the attack on the Pentagon.



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   


Not really a security camera Artist Wolfgang Staehle webcam of the Manhattan skyline - picture taken every 4 seconds Captured American 11 approach and impact on North Tower.


Wow, thanks a lot! Never thought I would see evidence as crappy and useless as the Pentagon footage.



The conspiracy loons have already proclaimed it a fake


"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference." - Quote attributed to Mark Twain.



So even if clear footage of American 77 existed would still deny it


Aaahhh yes...the old hypothetical card, which is to be played when you are requested evidence for your position and are not able to come up with any. Let me guess - Debunking 101.

I wonder how well that argument would work in a court of law?

"Ummmmm.....sorry judge.....I will not provide you with the evidence because you will deny it anyway.....so you'll just have to take my word on it.....



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 


Thanks for proving my point

That "truthers" dont care about objective evidence that conflicts with fantasies

So just what is "useless" about it

Is one of only 3 images taken of AA11 impact on North Tower



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by fnpmitchreturns
 


Look up the interview with Victor Boult (I think thats the blokes name) on Porject Camelot. I saw an article about this bloke on Australian Television investigative show 4 Courners on the Australian Braodcasting Corporation (Aussi ABC).

According the 4 corners report, Boult is a Russion arms dealer who eventually get lured to Bankcock, the capital of Thiland in Asia. There he becomes the property of the US alphabet securiuty organsiations.

According to the article, a very special kind of missile was fired at the Pentagon.

I suggest you read the story.



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by bussoboy
 


Really don't need to - the eyewitness testimony overrules the conjecture scenarios...



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 12:24 AM
link   
you should proabably search this board before making a post because theres tons of threads about 9/11



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 12:30 AM
link   
Deathforall: Who are you directing your comment to?
edit on 20-9-2011 by userid1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 12:37 AM
link   
GoodOlDave
I am open to your real evidence, being a recent truther convert.


so there were a hundred witnesses that specifically saw it was a passenger jet that hit the building, from an immigrant from El Salvador watering the lawns to a computer programmer packing to move from a nearby apartment complex.


That's 2. 98 to go ... Where can I find info documenting the other 98 you claim so I can evaluate the veracity of your claims? Names, perhaps? And even if no names, at least reports that document 100 eye witnesses? Or were you told this by a reporter on T.V. perhaps?

Source please.

How would you respond to a professional pilot that staets that he cannot personally pilot the airplane reported in the manuvers reported?


Up until now, the conspiracy mongers don't want to accept the fact their conspiracies are wrong so they accuse these witnesses of being "secret gov't disinformation agents", the aircraft wreckage is all "planted evidence", the human remains were all "staged", and so on.


Up until now, the original story believers don't want to accept the inconsistency and improbabilities, nay downright impossibilities, and the fact that the original story is wrong so they accuse these people calling BS of being "whacked out looneys", the obvious lack of wreckage is all "not to be considered as lack of evidence" and so on.


If the conspiracy mongors are going to be THAT childish, then what real difference does it make even if there is any more footage? They'll just accuse the footage of being faked just like they're accusing everything else of being faked.


If the official story lapper-uppers are going to be that gullible and naive, then what real difference does it make if there is an obvious lack of footage? A lack of wreckage? No marks from the wings, etc. If professional pilots, let alone hacks who can barely fly, like the supposed hijackers, state that they are incapable of manuvering a plane such, then what real difference does it make if we, the truthers, try to use logic and reason to point out the severe flaws in the official story?

And I do mean story, as in fiction.


It's one thing if the conspiracy people genuinely wanted to know more about the 9/11 attack. It's another thing entirely for them to rewrite the events of 9/11 to their liking.


It's one thing if the official story beleivers genuinely wanted to know the truth about the 9/11 attack. It's another thing entirely for them to blindly and without thought to accept the words of a proven and known repetative liar - our government, to their liking.

We can all play that game. The name of the El Salvadorian and computer programmer? The list of your other 98 eye witness are ...?


Becuase these images were recorded to tape, and they use the 1:5 ratio to save storage on the tape.


Sweet. So, if somebody wants to steal sensitive information from the heart of our national defense has 4 seconds to open a window and use something as simple as slingshot to launch top secret info out of the Pentagon? And there is only one camera watching an entire side of the building? Taking a pic every 5 seconds? Really?

I can't even drive through most intersections in the Denver Metro area without being recorded by 4 cameras.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 12:41 AM
link   


Thanks for proving my point That "truthers" dont care about objective evidence that conflicts with fantasies So just what is "useless" about it Is one of only 3 images taken of AA11 impact on North Tower


Unlike you, I do not have a pet fetish about what truthers or OS believers care or fantasize about. Best to leave those abnormal obsessions to others.

The evidence you have supplied is as objective as you are. It may be best not to utilize words which you obviously have issues with.

Please don't thank me; you deserve all the credit for this one.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by CatJockey


That's 2. 98 to go ... Where can I find info documenting the other 98 you claim so I can evaluate the veracity of your claims? Names, perhaps? And even if no names, at least reports that document 100 eye witnesses? Or were you told this by a reporter on T.V. perhaps?

Source please.


Go to google.

Copy paste this: :::: pentagon witnesses El Salvadorian computer programer.

Click: search

You will get this.


Afework Hagos , a computer programmer, was on his way to work but stuck ... Omar Campo, a Salvadorean, was cutting the grass on the other side of the .....


There you have the names.

Now wasn't that simple ?



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 01:37 AM
link   
To be fair, I am looking and have found about 20 eyewitness accounts ...



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by CatJockey
To be fair, I am looking and have found about 20 eyewitness accounts ...


Google: Penny Elgas . She ended up taking a piece of the plane home in her car. She later donated it to the Smithsonian.

As you can see it is part of the starboard wingtip.



Coincidentally, the starboard wing tip struck this pole near where her car was located.
The starboard engine also removed the top of that tree, Well that or a top secrete team of US government topiary agents snuck in and trimmed it while no one was looking.




new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join