It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


so much 'debunking' but what about...

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 09:06 AM
reply to post by SGTSECRET

There are pictures somewhere out there I've seen them or maybe it was a video.But it shows that there use to be cameras right at the impact point of the pentagon.Cameras would have captured the so-called plane coming straight at it!They were located on the roof pointing towards where the so-called plane came from.

There is also a video somewhere that shows a hotel(not sure which)that had a camera facing right at the impact point.The video shows though that the camera was taken down.And if you look there are pics or a video that shows proof the cameras were taken off the roof of the pentagon before 9/11!Have fun finding them though.

posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 09:44 AM

Originally posted by Morg234

Based on your sloppy research of the topic I'm going to say that you are not an engineer or a scientist. You have chosen to believe the piss poor "research" of a couple of truthers out to make an easy buck on the gullibility and paranoia of lazy people. All your questions have been answered many years ago. Just because a video camera wasn't in place to record the plane hitting the Pentagon does not mean that it did not happen.

Funny you choose to start your tirade when faced with the light pole question. Those knocked down don't add up with the plane's official trajectory.

In my opinion, most 9/11 conspiracy theorists tend to make statements without providing backing evidence for their position.

Thanks to snowcrash911 and Alfie1 for providing reasoned responses to the light pole question.

For example your statement:

Those knocked down don't add up with the plane's official trajectory.

Is a good example of what I'm talking about. You assert that the light poles aren't where they should be if they were hit by the plane yet you provide no reason/data/math/evidence to support your position. I do not know you or your qualifications to make that statement. I have nothing to judge the strength of your argument/statement.

The only response I have is to go off on a tirade. If you rather I present a well reasoned response then please provide some material we can discuss. Here is the format I'm looking for:

1. Present a hypothesis (The light poles fell in an a manner inconsistent with being struck by a 757 traveling at 400+ knots)

2. Justification for hypothesis (The light poles couldn't have been hit by a plane because the impact would have thrown the poles forward in line with the flight path, math, links to research conducted by others etc...)

3. Conclusion (if required; long posts sometimes need additional verbiage to tie all points into a concise package.)

edit on 2-1-2012 by huh2142 because: Correcting snowcrash911's name

posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 01:25 PM
The main issue here is that physics, contrary to public belief, is unintuitive. So when theorists of any persuasion make declarative statements about this object is expected to do this or that in a high speed collision, they are usually mistaken. I'm not talking about the usual air cushion sled momentum transfer experiments, but the more complex inelastic collisions involving shearing, buckling, tearing, ripping, crumpling, explosions (BLEVE, shaped charge, gas, electrical, other chemical, missile, nuclear, etc.), atomization, movements in 3D space, and photos taken with various lens and zoom parameters at various times and locations, with uncertain scene changes in between.

When it's the state conducting an investigation, all doors open. But when it's private citizens and activist organizations trying to get answers, they're usually dealing with a paucity of data which invites mistakes. In some cases, I even suspect deliberately omitted data or conversely: the introduction of misleading data, but I can't prove that.

Few apparent enigmas have been more inviting and seductively provoking conspiracy theories than the Pentagon attack. Even if you believe you've figured it out, you're going to have a hard time convincing anyone of it, because many minds will reject your explanations as blowing smoke. I'm also of the opinion that erroneous government data may have contaminated witnesses looking to 'polish' their own memories before interview by Googling.

A related example is the phenomenon of circular Wikipedia editing. Some of this may be due to the new times we're living in, where people are "contaminating" each others experience all the time, and misinformation spreads like wildfire.
edit on 2-1-2012 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 02:52 PM

why is it a threat to national security for us to see the videos of the the plane hitting the pentagon? doesn't make any sense.

First of all in response to your OP,it makes perfect sense,
And the first comment from DIDtm on your thread told you why as well.

Because a plane did not hit the Pentagon. They have no video of it, hence we can't see it.

Exactly,its against "national security",which just means the event or topic of discussion will put people or factions in "high places" from certain "important organizations" at risk,people that had money or resources involved,directly or indirectly,to or from.

It doesn't mean its to protect you or me,its to protect the people that pulled this stunt off,or whomever involved.
It means its pretty much a crime for anyone to speak otherwise of the event publicly,or to investigate it independently with a publicly recognized conclusion,whether it be against or with the official account.

new topics

top topics
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in