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.

 

A closer look at the pentagon camera footage

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by userid1
reply to post by kaya82
 


It really doesn't look like *anything* - and that's kind of the point - there IS no photographic evidence. This however, does nothing to disprove the multitude of eyewitnesses to the actual plane impact on the building...


edit on 12-10-2011 by userid1 because: (no reason given)
There is photographic evidence but the naughty government are hiding it due to national security


Sorry varemia i really dont know what hit the pentagon i just find it hard to believe it was a boeing. Yout right that was a stupid post that doesnt bring anything to the thread i apologise




posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaya82

Originally posted by userid1
reply to post by kaya82
 


It really doesn't look like *anything* - and that's kind of the point - there IS no photographic evidence. This however, does nothing to disprove the multitude of eyewitnesses to the actual plane impact on the building...


edit on 12-10-2011 by userid1 because: (no reason given)
There is photographic evidence but the naughty government are hiding it due to national security


Sorry varemia i really dont know what hit the pentagon i just find it hard to believe it was a boeing. Yout right that was a stupid post that doesnt bring anything to the thread i apologise


Thanks for that, I suppose. We can't be certain the government is hiding photographic evidence, also. It is only speculation.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   



No offense, but those videos really didn't show any daring maneuvers. And even after the fact, the plane that hit the pentagon was traveling at over 500mph. There are hardly any drastic maneuvers possible at that speed. The G-forces would probably crush your spine if you were sitting upright. But I'm getting off-topic.

As far as the pictures go, the same could be said about a cruise missile....




posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by wWizard
No offense, but those videos really didn't show any daring maneuvers. And even after the fact, the plane that hit the pentagon was traveling at over 500mph. There are hardly any drastic maneuvers possible at that speed. The G-forces would probably crush your spine if you were sitting upright. But I'm getting off-topic.

As far as the pictures go, the same could be said about a cruise missile....



There is certainly blue in the one photo, however. And there were a great number of witnesses. Perhaps someone can argue that the witnesses were all forged, but wouldn't the government have done a better job on these videos if they were trying to prove that it was an airliner? They weren't released for years, so there was plenty of time to do an amazing job, yet we're left with discerning the colors of pixels.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Another interesting thing you can do is track the after impact airborne debris to the location it was later photographed at.

The piece below can be seen flying through the air towards the camera and impacting in the lower lefthand corner of the frame, kicking up dust. The other piece of debris flying with it can be seen right behind the big guys butt. You can also see small fragments of carbon fiber in the air and landing right in front of the camera. This to me validates the 2 security videos as being genuine more than anything else.





Yellow arrows debris. Red arrow port wingtip vortices.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by userid1
reply to post by kaya82
 


It really doesn't look like *anything* - and that's kind of the point - there IS no photographic evidence. This however, does nothing to disprove the multitude of eyewitnesses to the actual plane impact on the building...


edit on 12-10-2011 by userid1 because: (no reason given)

As far as the witnesses that claim to have seen a plane, a cruise missile actually looks very similar to a plane.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by WeRpeons
 


Even IF such a video as you claim exists, exists....would not stop the most arcane "conspiracy theorists" from positing all sorts of inane things.

But of course, the info used to base this assertion in your post is incorrect, anyhow:

"FBI 'hides' 84 Tapes


As you see in that information above, nothing is being "withheld" by any agency.



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.

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.


Shouldn't the victims families at least get to scrutinize all 84 tapes? Don't the families deserve closure?



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by wWizard
No offense, but those videos really didn't show any daring maneuvers. And even after the fact, the plane that hit the pentagon was traveling at over 500mph. There are hardly any drastic maneuvers possible at that speed. The G-forces would probably crush your spine if you were sitting upright. But I'm getting off-topic.

As far as the pictures go, the same could be said about a cruise missile....



There is certainly blue in the one photo, however. And there were a great number of witnesses. Perhaps someone can argue that the witnesses were all forged, but wouldn't the government have done a better job on these videos if they were trying to prove that it was an airliner? They weren't released for years, so there was plenty of time to do an amazing job, yet we're left with discerning the colors of pixels.

Well the witnesses don't really have to be forged. The picture I linked is of a Tomohawk Cruise Missile, which looks strikingly similar to a plane. So if you saw that thing fly above your car while you're driving 65mph on the highway, and it's flying at over 500mph, are you really going to be able to tell the difference between that and a plane? No, of course not. Any person with even good eyesight would call it a plane. Hell, I'd say it was a plane too if I saw it.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by wWizard
 



As far as the witnesses that claim to have seen a plane, a cruise missile actually looks very similar to a plane...



Actually, not at all. And, cruise missiles don't carry a Flight Data Recorder (FDR) nor Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR), all found in the wreckage. Nor do the missiles carry Humans, and their DNA...nor their personal effects, nor the mass quantities of airplane wreckage and debris positively identified as from a Boeing 757...the aforementioned Recorders positively identify it as American 77.

The video that exists, is the one being analyzed in this thread. Surely, the proof of the airplane crash does not rely on the presence of a video, nor a still photo....just as the absence of any clear videos or stills does NOT refute the airplane crash.

Plenty of airplane accidents are investigated over the years, never in doubt as to what crashed...all absent any videos or photos of the event in progress.....

And, no even at "500 MPH" (last recorded airspeed was about 483 knots, so that is about 550 statute miles per hour (MPH)....the g-forces won't "crush" one's spine.....in such flight, without any abrupt maneuvering in the pitch attitude, about the lateral axis (there wasn't), the g-forces felt throughout would be just one g.



Originally posted by wWizard
The picture I linked is of a Tomohawk Cruise Missile, which looks strikingly similar to a plane.


Not to those of us experienced in aviation, and even many laypeople...the Tomahawk looks like a missile!!!
edit on Wed 12 October 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by wWizard
 


However, a number of witnesses were quite specific.

Here is the list again, just for research purposes:
911research.wtc7.net...

Example (found by using the "find" tool searching 'stripe'):
Elgas, Penny

It was far enough in front of me that I saw the end of the wing closest to me and the underside of the other wing as that other wing rocked slightly toward the ground. I remember recognizing it as an American Airlines plane -- I could see the windows and the color stripes. And I remember thinking that it was just like planes in which I had flown many times but at that point it never occurred to me that this might be a plane with passengers.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by loveguy
 




Shouldn't the victims families at least get to scrutinize all 84 tapes?


Surely. No reason not to. However, I (nor many of the "conspiracy" theorists) am not privy to what family members may have been briefed privately....I think their privacy should be respected.


In any event, many of those videos have been posted in various places online.

The OP of this thread still remains as the only real *look* however, and that is just the fact of circumstances that morning.

edit on Wed 12 October 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by wWizard
 



As far as the witnesses that claim to have seen a plane, a cruise missile actually looks very similar to a plane...



Actually, not at all. And, cruise missiles don't carry a Flight Data Recorder (FDR) nor Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR), all found in the wreckage. Nor do the missiles carry Humans, and their DNA...nor their personal effects, nor the mass quantities of airplane wreckage and debris positively identified as from a Boeing 757...the aforementioned Recorders positively identify it as American 77.

The video that exists, is the one being analyzed in this thread. Surely, the proof of the airplane crash does not rely on the presence of a video, nor a still photo....just as the absence of any clear videos or stills does NOT refute the airplane crash.

Plenty of airplane accidents are investigated over the years, never in doubt as to what crashed...all absent any videos or photos of the event in progress.....

And, no even at "500 MPH" (last recorded airspeed was about 483 knots, so that is about 550 statute miles per hour (MPH)....the g-forces won't "crush" one's spine.....in such flight, without any abrupt maneuvering in the pitch attitude, about the lateral axis (there wasn't), the g-forces felt throughout would be just one g.



Originally posted by wWizard
The picture I linked is of a Tomohawk Cruise Missile, which looks strikingly similar to a plane.


Not to those of us experienced in aviation, and even many laypeople...the Tomahawk looks like a missile!!!
edit on Wed 12 October 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)

Fair enough, but weren't the data recorders severely damaged and found to be inoperable? And out of all the witnesses who claim to have seen a plane, how many do you really think were experienced aviators?



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by wWizard
 


Pilots from the witness accounts which I could find using the find tool:

Elgas, Penny
Lagasse, William
Timmerman, Tim
Turner, Ron



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by wWizard
 




......but weren't the data recorders severely damaged and found to be inoperable?


No, only the CVR. There are threads here on ATS that discuss the FDR. There are videos that show the NTSB animated depiction of the data they read out from the FDR.

(Sadly, a particularly idiotic version has most *hits* online, and tends to come up first....you will recognize it on YouTube by the user name, "JohnDoeX", or something similar to that. It has text blocks added in as *commentary*, all completely ridiculous and irrelevant. Also, this person on YouTube who posted it as "JohnDoeX"?? None other than Rob Balsamo, of "PilotsFor9/11Truth". Sad, he should know better....but, he embarrasses himself with the drivel he writes, multiple times).



And out of all the witnesses who claim to have seen a plane, how many do you really think were experienced aviators?


How does an air traffic controller sound, as an experienced witness? Sean Boger, he worked the Heliport control tower, had a view of the airplane approaching, and impacting. (The Helipad has been relocated, since 2001).

Here, sorry it's YouTube, but this sums it up (and explains where the "cruise missile" meme began):





Since I did a YouTube already, here I found the full 1 1/2 hour version of the entire flight, starting on the taxiway near the end of the departure runway.

Note the time reference is wrong....NTSB made same mistake on the United 93 video. "EDT" should read "GMT".





Any airline pilot (except Rob Balsamo!!) can watch that and know immediately what he/she is looking at. It is much like many others we have seen, that display the flights from other crashes that have been investigated similarly.


edit on Wed 12 October 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by ALF88
Nobody can see anything on that video and to claim there is an airliner on that clip is moronic, wishful thinking.


You can clearly see specific non-fragment changes between the frames, indicating that there was an object. In the one video you can even see up close that the camera caught color.

If we're to embrace science here at ATS we need to be better than saying "it's impossible to find anything out using the videos."


Of course there was an object.. Just not an airliner. Probably a drone. People get confused and think missile, but to me, was likely a drone plane fit to look like a normal plane as best as possible, as a guided missile.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


Consider the source of where you get your information. This is the same source who also aligns itself with the OS.

I've lived in DC and worked for the GPO. I've had various VIP tours of many government buildings in DC, and if you believe that our government buildings in our nation's capital are not secured nor lack security cameras that watch your every move, you're living in a dream world. The pentagon is the main hub of our military planners. Do you really think they would keep that building so vulnerable? The last thing our political leaders would expect, is for another country or some inside terrorist having the ability to approach a building that has an archive of military secrets.

If we even take the Pentagon security video out of the play book, there were security videos by nearby businesses that were also confiscated. Those videos were never returned to the business owners.

Did you ever wonder why all these videos would be confiscated, when the only thing they would capture is the plane flying overhead or into the building? Not much pertinent information would be gathered if this was just a passenger plane. So why not give them back to the rightful owners?

So if these so called tapes didn't capture the plane flying into the building, why not prove it? The government doesn't like the idea of people believing in the 9/11 conspiracy. What better way than to prove the truth than by showing these videos during the time span of impact?



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProphetOfZeal

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by ALF88
Nobody can see anything on that video and to claim there is an airliner on that clip is moronic, wishful thinking.


You can clearly see specific non-fragment changes between the frames, indicating that there was an object. In the one video you can even see up close that the camera caught color.

If we're to embrace science here at ATS we need to be better than saying "it's impossible to find anything out using the videos."


Of course there was an object.. Just not an airliner. Probably a drone. People get confused and think missile, but to me, was likely a drone plane fit to look like a normal plane as best as possible, as a guided missile.


Even though there's no evidence for that, at least we're on the same page about there being a plane.

It seems like a lot of people think that there wasn't anything there or an honest-to-god missile.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   

FBI Withholding 84 More Tapes of Pentagon on 9/11 Magically Only 1 shows impact so why not release the rest? Steve Watson / Infowars | May 17 2006 The FBI is withholding at least another 84 surveillance tapes that were seized in the immediate aftermath of the attack on the Pentagon. There is an ongoing lawsuit to get these tapes released via the Freedom of Information Act. The FBI has admitted in a statement to attorney, Scott Hodes, representative of Mr Scott Bingham who runs the website www.flight77.info... that they have these tapes, that they have already analyzed them and are still keeping them under lock and key. A great deal of speculation has surrounded reports that on the morning of september 11th, 2001 the FBI visited two private businesses near the pentagon and confiscated several security camera video tapes. The first is said to be the Cigto gas station with several security cameras aimed in the direction of the pentagon. Flight 77 flew directly over the gas station at an altitude of roughly 50 feet, less than 3 seconds from impact. Three months after 9/11 The National Geographic and others reported on this, publishing short interviews with the gas station owner, Jose Velasquez.
reply to post by userid1
 


...That about covers it.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by WeRpeons
 



Not true:


....there were security videos by nearby businesses that were also confiscated. Those videos were never returned to the business owners.


If not the original videos, that may be the case. However, copies were provided upon request. The FBI held videos for a time, part of preparing the prosecution case for the Moussaoui trial.

FOIA requests filed after that trial concluded allowed any requested tape back into the public arena.

Oh, and....I lived in the DC area on 9/11/2001. In fact, my house was about three miles from the Pentagon, direct line. Was home that morning. In Arlington, Virgina. You can Google Map it, look for "Lyon Park", that was the neighborhood. I was on Garfield Street.

I have been to the Pentagon numerous times, I am well aware of the attempts to claim it is "crawling" with cameras... well, sure it is...inside mostly. And, the goose-neck camera pods (or whatever technical term they are called) mounted along the perimeter, on the roof line? I'd think they would be more interested in getting images of the surrounding parking areas, and not wasting time staring at the Pentagon walls.

Besides, for the exterior, they have their own police force. Of course, post-9/11, things may have been upped.

Pentagon Police


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The info you linked in this post is dated from 2006.

The Moussaoui trial was in 2006.

See the connection? FOIA requests were filed in late 2006.



edit on Wed 12 October 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   
In my opinion, it doesn't really matter what the footage shows.

This is THE PENTAGON, and we are supposed to beleive that the ONLY footage that shows anything is from a little camera from a barrier.

Seriously? If you picked your nose at your local 7/11 there will be 20 cameras on you.

And a jet liner hit the pentagon with no footage, from cameras on the roof or anything.

Please, what an insult.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join