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.

 

What Happened to the Planes? 911 and Logic

page: 7
14
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by homervb
 


Exactly, where is the footage?? WHERE IS IT???




posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by homervb
 



I'd even say the Pentagon has cameras in every hallway. There has to be footage from within the building that shows the "plane" passing through each section of the building.


You can say "it" to your hearts content - doesn't mean its true. Even if there were cameras in some of the hallways it doesn't mean that the quality is any better than the entrance way footage we've all seen. This is generally a notion based on the misconception that just because its the military or the government than they have the best and latest technology all the time. Nothing could be further from the truth.



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   
I'm still trying to figure out where I stand with regards to 911. I do think the majority of the "official story" makes more logical sense than some of the alternative theories I've read here and on other websites.

However, the pentagon baffles me. If they had more photos, and I don't know that they do, why won't they just release the images? Logically, I can only think of the following reasons not to release the pentagon photos (if they exist):

* No other photos exist. I don't know how many cameras are positioned around the pentagon and other buildings, but I would personally think they'd have more than one.

* The other cameras do not show the aircraft (or whatever) hit

* The photos show something the pentagon wants to keep secret. this could be anything, not necessarily a missile.

* The photos all show the same blurry image: then why not release more blurry images? But would it really satisfy anyone? I bet that even if we had 12 different camera angles showing similar blurry shots, there would be folks who insist it was still fake



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Genxbeyond
 


If a missile hit the Pentagon why do you suppose there are so many witnesses to a plane and none to a missile ?

Why do you suppose not a fragment of a missile was recovered at the Pentagon ?

How were dna identified body parts of passengers and crew of AA 77 recovered from the Pentagon ?

How did Boeing 757 parts find there way deep into a blazing section of the Pentagon ?

Why were Arlington Police calling in a plane crash at the Pentagon on the morning of 9/11 ? Including specific reference to an American Airlines plane over the Pike :-

www.youtube.com... .



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
[mo
Where is the footage?



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by smyleegrl
 



I'm still trying to figure out where I stand with regards to 911.

Really - why? Its been 11 years now almost.

I do think the majority of the "official story" makes more logical sense than some of the alternative theories I've read here and on other websites.

Actually - terrorism never makes sense. Its like saying the killings at West Virginia Tech "makes sense". What you have is a narrative based on observed evidence. Which includes documents, physical evidence and witness. There are no "alternative" theories. An alternative theory is a another theory based on the same set of facts. None of these conspiracy fanatasies is based on the same set of facts. They all depend, in way or another, on either the ommission or denial of critical facts or the inclusion of non-factual material or suppositions.

However, the pentagon baffles me.

You mean the one where there are dozens of eyewitness who saw the plane hit the building? What could be baffling you?

If they had more photos, and I don't know that they do, why won't they just release the images?

Well, I don't know exactly what you mean, but I suspect that you are asking about photos of the plane hitting the building, not the videos from inside the Penatagon after the impact during the recovery. Those photos and videos are not released for reasons that were stated. Except for, I believe two photos, that were released for trial.

Logically, I can only think of the following reasons not to release the pentagon photos (if they exist):

They don't. Assuming they do is a big leap in the wrong direction. This goes to the difference between an alternative theory and a fanatasy.

* No other photos exist. I don't know how many cameras are positioned around the pentagon and other buildings, but I would personally think they'd have more than one.

Why? CCTV is usually for record keeping and more importantly to save money on security. Do you think the DOD needed to save money on security?

* The other cameras do not show the aircraft (or whatever) hit

One kind of did, just not very clearly. "Whatever" means quite a few people are lying.

* The photos show something the pentagon wants to keep secret. this could be anything, not necessarily a missile.

Like what?

* The photos all show the same blurry image: then why not release more blurry images?

Because they don't exist.

But would it really satisfy anyone?

No, never. This isn't about intellectual satisfaction, this is about ego.

I bet that even if we had 12 different camera angles showing similar blurry shots, there would be folks who insist it was still fake

Of course. And then they would ask why they didn't release number 13.



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Genxbeyond
reply to post by Alfie1
 


www.youtube.com...


You think that answers the questions I put ?



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The only source is the kinetic energy of the falling 15 stories.
psik


Wrong.

As each subsequent level was destroyed/broken loose from the columns/ etc, it PE would be converted into KE. How much KE would of course depend on how much V it achieved by the next level.



Talk is cheap. Show us the physics.

psik


I did.

I showed you that your claim is incorrect. The upper 15 stories is NOT the only KE available.

Do you agree or not?



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by smyleegrl
 


Let´s look at the Flight 77 / Pentagon videos:
First, there is a bright white flash. That is not consistent with footage of Flight 11 and 175 impacts, but indicates some defensive weapon in action.
Second, an orange fireball that ejects upwards and extends over the roof to the same direction as the flight path.
Third, visible debris flying over the Pentagon. The roof was intact at that time, so some deflective upward force was acting outside the wall, and explosion started before the plane went inside.
Inside there is shattered and somewhat lessened material of the jet. And the "punch-out -hole" which I believe was made from outside for salvage reasons, it actually faces the A-E Ring passageway.
We should find debris over the roof and central yard. I don´t expect to see any more video footage, because we are looking at a military target which is well classified. Pentagon however will be typically cryptic to any real findings.



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by YetSharkproof
 



Let´s look at the Flight 77 / Pentagon videos:....

You realize, of course, that there are actual people who saw the actual plane hit the actual building in real time and in real life, right?



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous
I did.

I showed you that your claim is incorrect. The upper 15 stories is NOT the only KE available.

Do you agree or not?


So you think TALKING is Showing and you said nothing about the energy required to break things.

You Brilliance astounds me. I cast a shadow in your presence.

psik



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

So you think TALKING is Showing and you said nothing about the energy required to break things.

You Brilliance astounds me. I cast a shadow in your presence.

psik


I am uncomfortable with your idol worship.. Please stop.

I merely pointed out your error. Something that anyone with just a high school physics class under their belt should have known.

Kinda ironic then that you continually whine about how high school physics should be able to solve 9/11. Espexially since it's proven by this gaffe that you have never had a high school physics course, and your claim is proven baseless.



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by YetSharkproof
 



Let´s look at the Flight 77 / Pentagon videos:....

You realize, of course, that there are actual people who saw the actual plane hit the actual building in real time and in real life, right?


You realize there's footage that is being withheld that could easily be released to put doubts to rest?

I was watching the documentary called "In Plane Site" and it pointed out how in the Pentagon photos you can see office furniture untouched, books open with pages not burnt, and all kinds of evidence that shows there was no massive fire. The problem I see with this, is that the planes that hit the WTC apparently carried enough jet fuel to melt the supports of two massive skyscrapers but the plane that hit the Pentagon didn't carry enough fuel to burn furniture that was no less than 10 feet away from the impact. Just throwing it out there. I'm not saying this is conclusive evidence, but it does give me doubt of the O.S.









edit on 10-4-2012 by homervb because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by homervb
 



I'd even say the Pentagon has cameras in every hallway. There has to be footage from within the building that shows the "plane" passing through each section of the building.


You can say "it" to your hearts content - doesn't mean its true. Even if there were cameras in some of the hallways it doesn't mean that the quality is any better than the entrance way footage we've all seen. This is generally a notion based on the misconception that just because its the military or the government than they have the best and latest technology all the time. Nothing could be further from the truth.


Well, logically thinking, there's classified materials and documents within the Pentagon, I really doubt they would lack any kind of security over watching the entire perimeter. I think doubting that they had security makes less sense than assuming they do. It's the command center for the department of defense....you truly/personally believe they did not have any type of security cameras around the outside as well as in the hallways? I don't say this with hostility either, I'm just trying to see it your way



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by homervb
 


You are forgetting, or don't know, that there was further collapse of the structure some 20 minutes after the impact. That exposed things which had not been exposed to the initial conflagration.



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by homervb
 



You realize there's footage that is being withheld that could easily be released to put doubts to rest?

First, there are no doubts. Second, exactly what footage? Please provide some documentation for this phantom footage - and not your opinion that the footage exists.

I was watching the documentary called "In Plane Site" and it pointed out how in the Pentagon photos you can see office furniture untouched, books open with pages not burnt, and all kinds of evidence that shows there was no massive fire.

No, it just shows that fire is a physical chemical reaction that has limits.

The problem I see with this, is that the planes that hit the WTC apparently carried enough jet fuel to melt the supports of two massive skyscrapers but the plane that hit the Pentagon didn't carry enough fuel to burn furniture that was no less than 10 feet away from the impact. Just throwing it out there. I'm not saying this is conclusive evidence, but it does give me doubt of the O.S.

Please show proof that a given piece of furniture within 120 inches of the point of impact suffered no burn or damage. Or is this just your opinion based on an exhaustive google image search??? This requires you to prove that a certain piece of furniture was in a precise range of location and suffered NO, NONE, ZERO damage.



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

So you think TALKING is Showing and you said nothing about the energy required to break things.

You Brilliance astounds me. I cast a shadow in your presence.

psik


I am uncomfortable with your idol worship.. Please stop.

I merely pointed out your error. Something that anyone with just a high school physics class under their belt should have known.

Kinda ironic then that you continually whine about how high school physics should be able to solve 9/11. Espexially since it's proven by this gaffe that you have never had a high school physics course, and your claim is proven baseless.


You mean high school students who leave out information. Breaking pieces lose requires energy. You are claiming there is only a gain from breaking them loose. If the loss is greater then the gain then you are talking nonsense. Maybe you only dealt with dumb high school students. I used to beat the valedictorian at chess. I got straight D's in religion. He did the idiotic busywork to get A's in that trash.

psik



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by homervb
 


You are forgetting, or don't know, that there was further collapse of the structure some 20 minutes after the impact. That exposed things which had not been exposed to the initial conflagration.



That's definitely a valid point, I can't argue that.



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
First, there are no doubts. Second, exactly what footage? Please provide some documentation for this phantom footage - and not your opinion that the footage exists.







Please show proof that a given piece of furniture within 120 inches of the point of impact suffered no burn or damage. Or is this just your opinion based on an exhaustive google image search??? This requires you to prove that a certain piece of furniture was in a precise range of location and suffered NO, NONE, ZERO damage.


You're right, I did exaggerate and I don't have precise measurements. Heat of the moment, sorry man


edit on 10-4-2012 by homervb because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join