Where is the Full Length Pentagon Video OF 911?

page: 4
24
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Genxbeyond
 



FBI SEIZED GAS STATION VIDEO of PENTAGON "CRASH" MINUTES AFTER

This has been reported before, but obviously not in the mainstream news.

Supposedly the FBI, minutes after the crash, confiscated a gas station's security camera tapes that were in view of the crash at the Pentagon.

- Why did the FBI come so fast to confiscate this tape?

- How did they know this gas station's security tape would have caught the incident?

- Why hasn't the public heard of this before in the mainstream news or seen this video?

Showing this video could finally solve the mystery of the Pentagon crash.

The news report...

www.uscrusade.com...


he 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.

infowars.net...

Why take so many videos so quickly from so many surrounding buildings?? and how?? There had to be pre-knowlege for 84 surveillance tape to be seized so fast from hotels, gas stations - what other event in history needed a group of people to immediately seize that many surveillance videos? If it was a terrorist attack why hide the video, after all raising support to attack Iraq was in full swing at that time? If it shows that terrorists attacked us why not show the US people to rally support behind attacking Iraq?

THE ONLY REASON THERE IS TO HIDE SOMETHING IS BECAUSE.....

You think you have done something wrong
edit on 10-4-2012 by PageAlaCearl because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by PageAlaCearl
 



Why take so many videos so quickly from so many surrounding buildings??

They were not all from surrounding buildings. One of the main reasons to confiscate the tapes was to see if any co-conspirators were taped - as you may well be aware terrorists love to post their work on the internet.

....and how??

How what? That's their job - that's how. Do you really think this was the first time in history that any law enforcement agency ever thought about checking nearby CCTV for evidence???? Geez, think a little.

There had to be pre-knowlege for 84 surveillance tape to be seized so fast from hotels, gas stations....

There weren't 84 surveillance tapes confiscated from nearby buildings. Please present some evidence that these tapes were requested "so fast". You seem to hint that the tapes were requested minutes after the impact - do you have any evidence for this assertion?

- what other event in history needed a group of people to immediately seize that many surveillance videos?

Uh....any crime.

If it was a terrorist attack why hide the video

They didn't hide any videos. The videos are private property voluntarily surrendered to authorities. The authorities have no right to release private property.

....after all raising support to attack Iraq was in full swing at that time?

Huh/

THE ONLY REASON THERE IS TO HIDE SOMETHING IS BECAUSE.....

To keep you from stealing it.



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   
I just a Yahoo news report of a larg daytime fireball over Texas.

But no video!

Everybody has video on their cell phones. But no one took video??
It's been ten years we should have video of every bird pooping on every statue!

I smell another conspiracy as big as the Pentagon video conspiracy.



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   
my thoughts on the pentagon have always been towards what this thread is about. the high jacker of this plane was such a lousy student, that his teacher was going to refuse him more lessons. yet he was able to execute a fighter plane maneuver in a jumbo airliner so as to be able to bring it into the side of the pentagon? and why the side? why didn't the pilot just crash the plane down on the roof? would have been a lot easier and caused more damage.

so many questions.........



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by PageAlaCearl
 





Who does that unless your paid? Who would come here and spend all the time debunking in one forum??


I see you have started 117 threads since Febuary.
Most of them about fear mongering.
Aren't you affraid of the black suits comming to your house?
Or are you being paid to stir things up and cause confusion so as to make places like ATS irrevelant?



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


not to good with cut and paste, but here you go. fireball in san antonio.

www.huffingtonpost.com...



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Hooper, OK there might not be 84 cameras, so you tell me how many cameras were there then !

Do you really think that the only camera on the pentagon site was the one of the gas station ???



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



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Why take so many videos so quickly from so many surrounding buildings??


Originally posted by hooperThey were not all from surrounding buildings. One of the main reasons to confiscate the tapes was to see if any co-conspirators were taped - as you may well be aware terrorists love to post their work on the internet.


What would 'terrorists love to post their work on the internet' have to do with a gas station video being seized?


....and how??


Originally posted by hooperHow what? That's their job - that's how. Do you really think this was the first time in history that any law enforcement agency ever thought about checking nearby CCTV for evidence???? Geez, think a little.


No, but usually the evidence on the video is released, we see survalilance camera tape on the news every night, that's because they RELEASE them and not hold them for 10+ years


There had to be pre-knowlege for 84 surveillance tape to be seized so fast from hotels, gas stations....


Originally posted by hooperThere weren't 84 surveillance tapes confiscated from nearby buildings. Please present some evidence that these tapes were requested "so fast". You seem to hint that the tapes were requested minutes after the impact - do you have any evidence for this assertion?


Do you have proof there wasn't 84 tapes confiscated? Please present some evidence - see others can play your game as well


- what other event in history needed a group of people to immediately seize that many surveillance videos?


Originally posted by hooperUh....any crime.


So after every crime they confiscate videos and hold them locked down for over a decade, wow no wonder the law process takes forever.....



If it was a terrorist attack why hide the video


Originally posted by hooperThey didn't hide any videos. The videos are private property voluntarily surrendered to authorities. The authorities have no right to release private property.


They didn't hide them but keep them locked up for 10+ years to this day? The videos are not private if they contain evidence of a crime taking place.


....after all raising support to attack Iraq was in full swing at that time?


Originally posted by hooperHuh


Don't remember Shock and Awe, no WMD's found.....


THE ONLY REASON THERE IS TO HIDE SOMETHING IS BECAUSE.....


Originally posted by hooperTo keep you from stealing it.


MMMk.....Yea you hear of people stealing gas station video surveillance all the time....
....hmmmm....cash register or surveillance video?



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   
You are all wrong. The "objects" that hit the pentagon were in fact interdimensional beings, i.e the djinn. The lower order beings who feed upon negativity and can appear to us as anything they damn well please...... www.groundzeromedia.org...




posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by kawika
 



How does such a flimsy aluminum frame penetrate multiple layers of 9 ft thick concrete walls?


So nice to grace us with some of your delusions........

9 foot thick walls ...?

Pentagon walls are BRICK, exterior (E ring) is covered with facade of 8 in thick cut limestone


The extensive use of reinforced concrete and non-reinforced masonry was one concession. Certainly the threat of any kind of terrorist attack on the building was far from the thoughts of the original designers. As a result, the Pentagon was constructed with a thin limestone facade over a brick infill between reinforced concrete floors, structurally supported by a reinforced concrete beam and column frame. Enough to protect from the elements but not from the potential forces of significant blast events.


Notice the brick wall



Another thing is that there is no interior wall on the 2 lowest floors - once through E Ring is no substanial wall
between it and C Ring


This argument is based on a misunderstanding of the Pentagon's design. In fact, the light wells between the C- and D-ring and D- and E-ring are only three stories deep. The first and second stories span the distance between the Pentagon's facade and the punctured C-ring wall, which faces a ground-level courtyard. There are no masonry walls in this space, only load-bearing columns. Thus it would be possible for an aircraft part that breached the facade to travel through this area on the ground floor, miss the columns, and puncture the C-ring wall without having encountering anything more than unsubstantial gypsum walls and furniture in-between.


Empire State Building is made of exactly same materials

Which is second point.....

A B25 aircraft struck the Empire State in July 1945

Here is hole it made



One of the motors punched out the opposite side of the building landing on roof of adjacent building

Now this was from an aircraft weighing less than 1/10 of a Boeing 757 traveling at 1/3 the speed

The force levels at the Pentagon are some 100 times that of of the B25

Here are some holes in steel ships from "flimsy aluminium airplanes".....





Now tell us how a World War II B 25 can punch out such a large hole while a Boeing 757 cant not

I'm in the mood for fairy tales....



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 11:09 PM
link   
And I suppose all of those people that physically saw a 757 AA flying over their heads, over their cars, 30-100ft over head, and watched it plow head on into the Pentagon are all lying, in on it, mass hypnotized, secret NWO agents, fooled by holograms, stupid, fake, right?

Truthers are a funny bunch. Living in a fantasy world.

I ask this question then. For those of you so adamant that it was a *snicker* missile, have you every been by the Pentagon or at least 1/2 mile from it? I have. I must say, you have to either have serious brain damage, or are willfully being ignorant, because to fake a plane crash in front of thousands of potential eyewitnesses, borders on sheer insanity and stupidity. This is not bumping off an enemy spy with a spring loaded poisoned BB from a cane on a train station platform. This is crashing a 757 airliner into a prominent structure in front of, over, and next to thousands of people. To even consider using a missile (by the way, what kind of missile has the length and wingspan of a 757, with AA markings, seats, landing gear, and human bodies?) and pretend and say it was a plane, is mind-numbing.

Go to the Pentagon during morning rush. By God, I got to enjoy that for quite a few days while in DC (hotel was located next to Dulles International, took the bus into DC). As I rode along next to the Pentagon, I have to wonder how anyone could mistake a tiny missile for a full sized 757 impacting the Pentagon. As of yet, I have not heard a single feasible idea of how it could be pulled off and fool everyone that was near or next to the Pentagon or had the plane thunder over their car and on to the Pentagon. I dont give a rat's behind how much you believe that it was no plane, the fact is, in the real world, what the "truthers" put forward is nothing more than make believe. Go ahead, try me. Give me a decent explanation of just how they would have been able to get away with using a missile, and faking everything, and fooling everyone, and remember: no magic, stealth ninjas, no magicians, no make believe. I want a workable "theory" of just how they'd do it, with out any Hollywood style explanations.



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 11:16 PM
link   
I think the idea of it being a predator type plane(remote controlled smaller plane) sits with me better. The smaller wheel in the wreckage supports this.

Action packed kamikaze predator plane of course
edit on 10-4-2012 by Corpsehoagie because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Genxbeyond
 


Yeah its locked up alright,,,, In the puzzle palace............pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! Im feelin all red, white and blue tonight! God fn bless the USA I have a patriotic boner!!! Um.... yeah all I saw watching the news with my little one when she was about six, asking me what was happening when the towers fell,,,especially # 7 and he trilliond of dollars gone! ! I know what happened... It was the beginning of our collective end. .... and it seems to get worse every day,,, These assclowns runnin the show are not doing the collective a dang bit of good... Just my humble opinion tho! 666 777 1111, Oh # theres a white van outside now .....gotta go! JK, and just a bit frustrated at the state of it all,,,, gotta go get my hoodie on now and take a walk to go buy skittles as its raining out and I hope I AM safe!!! Fu@k!



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Genxbeyond
 


I agree, there should be a post every day till answers are provided. The amount of responses this thread is generating is proof enough that the public is not confortable with the Official Story and feels a need to discuss.
The only reason the American public is not allowed to see the pentagon videos is because of what they show .


It is exactly what happened to the Murrow building tapes: Oklahoma City Bombing Federal Surveillance Tapes Coverup .
www.youtube.com...


Anyways, keep up the interesting work Genxbeyond.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


The impact pictures you show of the kamikaze plane attacks are very cool, kudos. But you do realize that the hole shown in the ships is caused by explosive charges attached to the plane .
Not very relevant but cool non the less .



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by miniatus
 


Well if you are really curious then you would investigate 911. To just accept the Official Story and then criticize others for asking the same unanswered questions again shows a lack of due diligence on your part, but to each his own . did you see this video,

It is NOT entirely impossible to believe that the American people are not being shown the pentagon tapes because of what they show .

www.youtube.com...
edit on 11-4-2012 by onlnpkr because: spelling



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Those are nice pictures but none of the peices have been shown to fit the engines and landing gears in question .

But you know what they do look like . They look like they may have been part of a smaller plane . www.tomflocco.com...

Here is some info that backs that prospect up. You should learn more . You seem to have a passion keep up the good work .
edit on 11-4-2012 by onlnpkr because: Link



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by onlnpkr
They look like they may have been part of a smaller plane . www.tomflocco.com...


And you believe such garbage?

You missed this bit....

Curiously, a large piece of wreckage was found in the entry hole; but the public was kept from closely observing what appears to be a sheared-off piece of wing from a much smaller jet than a Boeing 757. A group of military personnel and federal officials in suits tightly covered the piece of wreckage with a blue tarp and carried it away to a waiting truck


That "blue tarp" was a tent that was being carried in, not out....

That site is full of such garbage!



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 01:13 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


I have noticed that your post all have a theme. Interesting . Your biggest lies is that no one believes 911 was an inside job. That may be true but if you tell lies then people will notice that your story is weak.

A VERY important thing to remember is that everyday, people are waking up to the fact that the Government is hiding some very basic truths about what happened that day. WHY?
Another thing to remember is that while many Official Story adherents cross the rubicon and believe that 911 doesn't add up, no one crosses back to the government story afterwards.

Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research
Americans Question Bush on 9/11 Intelligence
October 14, 2006

- Many adults in the United States believe the current federal government has not been completely forthcoming on the issue of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, according to a poll by the New York Times and CBS News. 53 per cent of respondents think the Bush administration is hiding something, and 28 per cent believe it is lying.

Only 16 per cent of respondents say the government headed by U.S. president George W. Bush is telling the truth on what it knew prior to the terrorist attacks, down five points since May 2002.

Polling Data

When it comes to what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001, about possible terrorist attacks against the United States, do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?

Oct. 2006
May 2002

Telling the truth
16%
21%

Hiding something
53%
65%

Mostly lying
28%
8%

Not sure
3%
6%


www.angus-reid.com...
via:


So it is YOU that is in the minority position as opposed to what you would like everyone else to believe which is that truthers are a fringe sect .


Your lack of candor is telling





new topics
top topics
 
24
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join