Where is the Full Length Pentagon Video OF 911?

page: 12
24
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by 911files

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
Every single piece of evidence


So show me the plane. I posted the real time ATC audio and radar for you. Should not be difficult for you to point out this mysterious plane that no one saw fly-over the Pentagon on radar.


What if the transponder was off?

I'm not agreeing because I know nothing of this concept as yet, I've only just read about it, yet to research it, but the military could not spot flight 77 until it was too late to intercept, if we are to believe the OS.

Those pesky transponders made plane invisible for a while that day. Maybe this flyover plane was set up to be off radar?

Like I say, I need to research more on this, but thought I'd mention the transponders because we do know they were turned off.




posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
reply to post by R0CR13
 


That video is a HOAX!


First time I have seen this video, I don't suppose you know where I can find a frame by frame analysis of this by an professional video expert? It would be nice to see some expert analysis on this missile video, so I can get a professional take on it. Thanks



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by VoidHawk
They have. It just gets buried by the trolls, just wait and see.

2nd


just curious, is the 2nd, or 2nd line just a way to keeo you from having

"1 liners"?



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Dizrael
 


Yep



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   
good question. show and tell Mr. government. to quote the backbone of many pro NWO anti-privacy shouters, if you have 'nothing to fear, you have nothing to hide'. guess they (OS posse) have something to hide.
by the way, all OS defenders, you are traitors, i hope you understand that, and won't squeal too loudly when fate catches up with you. and it will. have patience.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by RoScoLaz
good question. show and tell Mr. government. to quote the backbone of many pro NWO anti-privacy shouters, if you have 'nothing to fear, you have nothing to hide'. guess they (OS posse) have something to hide.
by the way, all OS defenders, you are traitors, i hope you understand that, and won't squeal too loudly when fate catches up with you. and it will. have patience.


Wait, what? What am I (and other people who side with the majority of the OS) hiding or fearing?

Honestly, the only thing I fear is that one day one of you will track down someone and kill them because you believe they are a "traitor" for their beliefs. It's psychopathic.

If you have a point to argue that proves your beliefs true, then make your point. Otherwise, you're just acting like a religious nut.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by RoScoLaz
good question. show and tell Mr. government. to quote the backbone of many pro NWO anti-privacy shouters, if you have 'nothing to fear, you have nothing to hide'. guess they (OS posse) have something to hide.
by the way, all OS defenders, you are traitors, i hope you understand that, and won't squeal too loudly when fate catches up with you. and it will. have patience.


Wait, what? What am I (and other people who side with the majority of the OS) hiding or fearing?

Honestly, the only thing I fear is that one day one of you will track down someone and kill them because you believe they are a "traitor" for their beliefs. It's psychopathic.

If you have a point to argue that proves your beliefs true, then make your point. Otherwise, you're just acting like a religious nut.


There is nothing psychopathic about what he said. You ARE traitors. The people in that "majority" that you speak of have simply just taken the government's word for it because they are just brainwashed media lemmings. But those of you who are exposed to the FACTS day in and day out are willfully concealing the truth and making excuses for the real criminals. You KNOW that the only "investigation" was a whitewash. You will have NO excuses when the Karma Police catch up with you.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by thegameisup
What if the transponder was off?


The transponder was off. No matter for ASR (the Reagan radar) since it is used for approach and transponder on/off makes no difference.


Originally posted by SimontheMagus

I dunno (yet)... who knows what the perps did to cover up the radar evidence. Maybe the pilot hit the stealth button
All this is is your usual tactics.... like I'm supposed to know how they pulled this off and then to prove it
What a switch.... I'm supposed to show you the plane, but you can't even show me the plane



So let me get this straight. The radar data from 4 local ASR antennas (Dulles, Reagan, Andrews, and Baltimore) and 2 ARSR antennas (The Plains and Oceana) were all "doctored"? The air traffic controllers at Reagan who had a clear view of the area did not see the plane past the Pentagon because "the pilot hit the stealth button"? Not one eyewitness saw the plane past the Pentagon and yes, I can show you the plane.

You may not be aware of this but radar and light are the same thing (electromagnetic waves at different wavelengths). So just because the "video" of it is from radar rather than video/pictures does not negate the fact that I can show you the plane that crashed into the Pentagon from the time it took off until it hit the Pentagon.

And yes, if you are going to make a hypothesis in regards to something (anything at all), then you are "supposed to know how they pulled this off."
edit on 9-7-2012 by 911files because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


You really ought to be more careful when you start calling people traitors. Especially when your posts are among the most misinformed that show up on ATS.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by thegameisup

Originally posted by Reheat
reply to post by R0CR13
 


That video is a HOAX!


First time I have seen this video, I don't suppose you know where I can find a frame by frame analysis of this by an professional video expert? It would be nice to see some expert analysis on this missile video, so I can get a professional take on it. Thanks


Why do you want a frame-by-frame analysis of some home-made hoax video posted on YouTube by some kid?



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by 911files

Originally posted by thegameisup

Originally posted by Reheat
reply to post by R0CR13
 


That video is a HOAX!


First time I have seen this video, I don't suppose you know where I can find a frame by frame analysis of this by an professional video expert? It would be nice to see some expert analysis on this missile video, so I can get a professional take on it. Thanks


Why do you want a frame-by-frame analysis of some home-made hoax video posted on YouTube by some kid?


I said a professional expert, I dont recall ever mentioning a kid! That would just be really stupid!

So if it has not been analysed by a professional video expert then how can you call it a 'hoax'.

I'm just curious how you come to your answer of hoax without some detailed expert analysis?



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by thegameisupI said a professional expert, I dont recall ever mentioning a kid! That would just be really stupid!

So if it has not been analysed by a professional video expert then how can you call it a 'hoax'.

I'm just curious how you come to your answer of hoax without some detailed expert analysis?


No, you did not mention a "kid". But that is who made it (judging by the quality). Darn, I could make a better video than that. But how do I know it is a "hoax"? Because there is NO HELICOPTER IN THE SKY AT THAT ALTITUDE AND LOCATION ON THAT DATE AT THAT TIME TO TAKE IT.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by 911files

Originally posted by thegameisupI said a professional expert, I dont recall ever mentioning a kid! That would just be really stupid!

So if it has not been analysed by a professional video expert then how can you call it a 'hoax'.

I'm just curious how you come to your answer of hoax without some detailed expert analysis?


No, you did not mention a "kid". But that is who made it (judging by the quality). Darn, I could make a better video than that. But how do I know it is a "hoax"? Because there is NO HELICOPTER IN THE SKY AT THAT ALTITUDE AND LOCATION ON THAT DATE AT THAT TIME TO TAKE IT.


You cannot even confirm the source, or if it is a hoax, so therefore you cannot call it a hoax.

I'm personally not questioning the video either way, I just wanted to know how you could claim it was a hoax becuase you provided no evidence to back up your hoax claim.

It's all very well calling something a hoax, but you have to provided conslusive evidence inclusing data sources and analysis to back up the claim of a hoax. Do you see what I was getting at?



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


You really ought to be more careful when you start calling people traitors. Especially when your posts are among the most misinformed that show up on ATS.


You and your tag team say the same thing to just about all of us who have the audacity to question the OS. We're all "misinformed", "ignorant", "lacking reading comprehension skills", or just plain "stupid", "dumb", "mentally challenged" or "incapable of critical thinking".

No response to the video that blows your star witness Sean Boger out of the water eh?

I may get some details wrong now and then, but I don't do it purposely. It's to be expected in a sea of disinformation. It's got to do with intent. I'm genuinely trying to get to the truth. What that has to do with you being a traitor and me calling you on it escapes me.
edit on 9-7-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by thegameisup
It's all very well calling something a hoax, but you have to provided conslusive evidence inclusing data sources and analysis to back up the claim of a hoax. Do you see what I was getting at?



Suit yourself. I'm not the one presenting the darn thing as evidence of anything, you are. So the burden is on you. But the first rule of evidence is to source the evidence. You have no source. But show me video of the Pentagon from a time that was definitely NOT 9/11 (note no construction trailers in the area) taken from an aircraft that DID NOT exist on 9/11 and I'm going to call hoax.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by thegameisup
how can you call it a 'hoax'.




Because it's a hoax.




The aeriel footage was shot in 2006.

video.google.com...#

Truthers swallow it HOOK LINE & SINKER.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by 911files

Originally posted by thegameisup
It's all very well calling something a hoax, but you have to provided conslusive evidence inclusing data sources and analysis to back up the claim of a hoax. Do you see what I was getting at?



Suit yourself. I'm not the one presenting the darn thing as evidence of anything, you are. So the burden is on you. But the first rule of evidence is to source the evidence. You have no source. But show me video of the Pentagon from a time that was definitely NOT 9/11 (note no construction trailers in the area) taken from an aircraft that DID NOT exist on 9/11 and I'm going to call hoax.


If you read all most posts, particularly the one before this, I have never said once I believe it, or don't believe it.

My argument was you were calling something a hoax, without presenting a proper reason or evidence your opinion.

I've never seen this before, and was not making a decision either way until you gave me more information.

I hope you can now understand why I was asking for more information.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by thegameisupMy argument was you were calling something a hoax, without presenting a proper reason or evidence your opinion.


Yes I did, no source for it. In this age of CGI you can't just post something on Youtube and call it evidence. You have to source it. No verifiable source, then hoax until proven otherwise.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinityoreilly
Originally posted by Zebra777

An analysis of the 9/11 Pentagon videos released by the U.S. Department of Defence on May 16, 2006

Pretty good analysis.

Now the raw footage:

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...



There are no missing frames in the video. The truther just wasn't smart enough to figure out the location of the camera for video 2.





new topics
top topics
 
24
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join