Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Where is the Full Length Pentagon Video OF 911?

page: 10
24
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 28 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   
My friends dad, from CT, saw it and told me about it about 5 years ago when he up visiting his son in NB, Canada.
He was 50 at the time, no reason to lie. He's my best friends father... He's not into conspiracies but believes something may have went down at the Trade Centers other than the official story but not sure

SOMETHING is odd about the fact all footages was confiscated from Gas Stations and other Pentagon cameras.
edit on 28-5-2012 by CALGARIAN because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 28 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by CALGARIAN
My friends dad, from CT, saw it and told me about it about 5 years ago when he up visiting his son in NB, Canada.
He was 50 at the time, no reason to lie. He's my best friends father... He's not into conspiracies but believes something may have went down at the Trade Centers other than the official story but not sure

SOMETHING is odd about the fact all footages was confiscated from Gas Stations and other Pentagon cameras.
edit on 28-5-2012 by CALGARIAN because: (no reason given)


Yeah. It's not like they wanted to see if they could discern for certain what had impacted the Pentagon. It's probably standard procedure in the event of an accident or attack.

No one has checked.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 09:51 AM
link   
They need to release the real, unedited video footage, from all the available cameras at the pentagon, until then the 'plane' story carries no weight whatsoever.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   
If they want people to believe that a 757 hit the pentagon then all they have to do is release a proper video that can be verified as being real footage, not some edited video that shows nothing but an explosion.

You'd think they'd want to prove that a real 757 hit the pentagon, until they do then the OS falls down.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by kidtwist
They need to release the real, unedited video footage, from all the available cameras at the pentagon, until then the 'plane' story carries no weight whatsoever.


Your logic is flawed.

In order for "x" to be true, you must have proof of "x".

There are pictures of plane debris (specific to AA jets), dozens of eyewitnesses to the crash, and recovered black boxes from the pentagon.

You are saying then, that all the previous evidence is false because you cannot find a video of the plane. Are then all event untrue if they are not caught on film? The logic is simply wrong. You are making an assumption about the existence of a video, and your assumption is what you are basing your rejection of evidence on.

Stop rejecting evidence based on a faulty assumption. It's stupid.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by kidtwist
They need to release the real, unedited video footage, from all the available cameras at the pentagon, until then the 'plane' story carries no weight whatsoever.


Your logic is flawed.

In order for "x" to be true, you must have proof of "x".

There are pictures of plane debris (specific to AA jets), dozens of eyewitnesses to the crash, and recovered black boxes from the pentagon.

You are saying then, that all the previous evidence is false because you cannot find a video of the plane. Are then all event untrue if they are not caught on film? The logic is simply wrong. You are making an assumption about the existence of a video, and your assumption is what you are basing your rejection of evidence on.

Stop rejecting evidence based on a faulty assumption. It's stupid.


Oh my lkogic is flawed because they deliberately have not released the CCTV footage?!

Are you one of those types that believe eveything your government tells you? Your government does not care about you, and you should question everthing they tell you.

All that evidence is fake, so take a good look at your own logic before you start jumping to false conclusions about others.

You have been sucked in by their lies, or you're paid to spread lies, which one is it? Where is the CCTV footage, until it is produced all their fake evidence is just that, fake.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by kidtwist


Oh my lkogic is flawed because they deliberately have not released the CCTV footage?!



Your logic is flawed because you reject existing evidence on the grounds that some other evidence is not available. It's like insisting the moon landings didn't happen because there's no fingerprint evidence.

It's just silly, that's all.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by kidtwist


Oh my lkogic is flawed because they deliberately have not released the CCTV footage?!



Your logic is flawed because you reject existing evidence on the grounds that some other evidence is not available. It's like insisting the moon landings didn't happen because there's no fingerprint evidence.

It's just silly, that's all.


You come out with some ridiculous stuff, you cannot compare the moon to this. I said CCTV not fingerprints. I know why you keep coming up with these daft comments, but most people on this forum can see past your deliberate games!

Yes, I and 500 million people that saw the pentagon strike video do reject the edited CCTV footage that was released from the pentagon. www.pentagonstrike.co.uk...

We know there were more cameras, we know private CCTV footage from the surrounding area was quickly confiscated, and we know the short clip that was relased by the government was heavily edited, and has frames missing.

We want to see the unedited version of the footage they released, because there one shows no craft that can be identified (that is why they edited it, to obscure what was really there).

We want to see the rest of the pentagon CCTV footage, unedited.

We want to see all the private CCTV footage that was confiscated (again unedited).

When all this is released (unedited), then people can make a proper judgement, until then their story does not add up.

We will not see this because it will reveal that a 757 did NOT hit the pentagon, and would reveal that a drone craft/missile disguised as plane hit the pentagon, and then their alibi would be up, and they could no longer blame the muslims, who had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11!!!



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   


Here's a good photo, and this should have been picked up by the pentagon CCTV.

Seems pretty obvious from this picture that either a missile was launched from this plane, or this plane is flight 77 and a missile/drone was launched by other means, and eye witnesses didnt notice flight 77 flying off because the explosion caused confusion.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by kidtwist
 


Considering that is a photoshopped fantasy photograph, I doubt seriously the CCTV would have picked up that plane.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Genxbeyond
 


didnt the FBI confiscate a video recording of the attack on the pentagon from a local petrol/gas station??

I would ask the question, why did they do this?

Was it to stop it being sent to the media? I am not insinuating what was the video footage, merely asking why they would confiscate it?

Would it be a national security issue? Would it depict actual people dying?
If this was the case, then why wasnt the twin towers / WTC7 footage banned from being aired on tv?

I am not getting involved in the whole missile / plane / hologram bananas, merely asking why that footage hasnt been released, has anyone ever asked?



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 


I find your perception of logic flawed, there is alot of evidence that supports many different theories, not just the OS.

However, logically, to silence the nutters then releasing the footage would be the logical course of action, just because you perceive for their to be enough evidence already, they shouldnt release it??!?

To me that makes no sense, if I was within the government, I would release the footage to stop the nay-sayers completely.

Where is the logical in with-holding the evidence? In what was supposedly the biggest crime commited on american soil in history, you would have thought that if the footage contained damning evidence to support the OS, then it would be released to support the OS, removing all doubt and earning trust again in the government by the american people.

I am not american, I do not live in the US, so I find peoples trust issues with the american government quite interesting.

But in future, please do not use ''logic'' to argue your point, when you yourself are not logically thinking or minded.

I too hate the crazies and mental debunkers who refuse to accept anything else, I am merely after the facts & evidence that supports whatever happended on that day, to with-hold it, is doing the people who died, and the people who died in subsequent wars a dis-service.

Richy



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by pigsy2400
reply to post by Genxbeyond
 


didnt the FBI confiscate a video recording of the attack on the pentagon from a local petrol/gas station??

I would ask the question, why did they do this?


Because there was a crime. Standard procedure for law enforcement to obtain local CCTV video following a major event such as the Pentagon strike.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by pigsy2400
 


Confiscated and released to the public. And the video showed........THE GAS STATION. There was ONE camera that caught what was most likely Flight 77's vertical stabilizer and the following explosion, but the angle was..again...designed to catch the goings on at the gas station and not at the office building across the highway...so not a real good view.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by pigsy2400
merely asking why that footage hasnt been released, has anyone ever asked?


What research did you do to see if it had been released?

obviously none at all, as it has been released!



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


Why do "truthers" pretend that a video showing an aircraft would convince them that he Pentagon was hit by an aircraft? None of the other conclusive evidence has convinced them of an aircraft attack. Even the video that has been released was called fake and manipulated as soon as it was released. Why should anyone bother to release anything more even if it exists. I sincerely hope they don't release anything else because undoubtedly it would be rejected. Why should anyone go to the effort to release something to have a few fools on the Internet accuse them of manipulation or faking anything they released. "Truthers" are truly not interested in facts at all, just something to rail about and perpetuate the 9/11 Internet junkie hobby. This entire issue is amusing because "truthers" have committed the equivalent of "crapping in your own yard" regarding any additional release of any information at all....
edit on 6-7-2012 by Reheat because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 11:21 PM
link   
What about the hundreds of eyewitnesses that actually saw the airplane flying over or near them before it hit the pentagon?

Here are a few link


Here is the only other video, that i am aware of, showing the attack

edit on 6-7-2012 by phrankie79 because: something



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by kidtwist


Here's a good photo, and this should have been picked up by the pentagon CCTV.

Seems pretty obvious from this picture that either a missile was launched from this plane, or this plane is flight 77 and a missile/drone was launched by other means, and eye witnesses didnt notice flight 77 flying off because the explosion caused confusion.


I was going to respond to some of your earlier posts on this thread until I came upon your above post.

Which one of these are you:

1. Someone who gets on here just to have fun and get laughs by posing as a "truther" but continually trying to make them seem like a bunch of jerks by the imbecility of your posts?

2. .......

Nevermind, I will stop there.

The sad thing is that I have yet to see one "truther" call you out for what to me seems obvious. That is truly sad.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 02:50 AM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


I cannot make any excuse in my ignorance of the CCTV footage from the petrol station, I wasnt aware it was available. My argument still stands however, the amount of Cameras that there are on the pentagon and surrounding areas, just seems a little odd to me that there was no other footage at all!

I mean, this is the pentagon!



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by kidtwist
They need to release the real, unedited video footage, from all the available cameras at the pentagon, until then the 'plane' story carries no weight whatsoever.


Your logic is flawed.

In order for "x" to be true, you must have proof of "x".

There are pictures of plane debris (specific to AA jets), dozens of eyewitnesses to the crash, and recovered black boxes from the pentagon.

You are saying then, that all the previous evidence is false because you cannot find a video of the plane. Are then all event untrue if they are not caught on film? The logic is simply wrong. You are making an assumption about the existence of a video, and your assumption is what you are basing your rejection of evidence on.

Stop rejecting evidence based on a faulty assumption. It's stupid.


The five frames that took them nearly three years to release has frames missing. You can deny that all you want but we are not the idiots that you think we are. It is so obvious when the five frames are viewed in rapid succession that a child (or any idiot) could see it. Clearly they went out of their way to hide the craft, but even what they did give us proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was no 757 but something less than half its size.

They would have been better off never releasing it at all.

You reject evidence based on your own faulty assumption: that a 757 hit the Pentagon.





new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join