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.

 

Pentagon "plane" crash - Where is the plane?

page: 9
15
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





Or... there isn't a video, and you're rejecting all the evidence for no good reason. You're ASSUMING that there's a video, and that it is subsequently evidence of a coverup. Your ASSUMPTION is what makes you inadvertently a liar.


OMG, you have just gone way beyond idiotic and have achieved complete and utter lunacy.

Are seriously saying that there are no other videos that FBI has. That all the testimony about video tapes being confiscated is false?

I don't wish to break the T&C's but you sir calling me a liar based on such a ridiculous claim as "there isn't a video" is absolutely ludicrous and you deserve to be reamed for the complete fool you are.
edit on 6/7/2012 by IpsissimusMagus because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Here are the links from the prosecution side of the Moussouai trial.

Prosecution trial exhibits

Same crappy video as always

Link

Some are even dead links. Again no other CCTV footage was released

Please notice that the video footage was good enough and fast enough to capture the explosion.

But is somehow too slow to have captured the plane? Really? I mean seriously, are we to believe that the cameras can capture the beginning, middle and end of a split second explosion. Yet somehow the video is too slow to have capture a single clear image of the plane itself?

Only a total fool would buy that excuse.


edit on 6/7/2012 by IpsissimusMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by IpsissimusMagus
reply to post by Varemia
 





Or... there isn't a video, and you're rejecting all the evidence for no good reason. You're ASSUMING that there's a video, and that it is subsequently evidence of a coverup. Your ASSUMPTION is what makes you inadvertently a liar.


OMG, you have just gone way beyond idiotic and have achieved complete and utter lunacy.

Are seriously saying that there are no other videos that FBI has. That all the testimony about video tapes being confiscated is false?

I don't wish to break the T&C's but you sir calling me a liar based on such a ridiculous claim as "there isn't a video" is absolutely ludicrous and you deserve to be reamed for the complete fool you are.
edit on 6/7/2012 by IpsissimusMagus because: (no reason given)


Well, the hotel video has been released, the gas station video was released, and two of the security cameras from the pentagon were released. None of them showed the plane, or anything else for that matter. Security cameras for one, are not fast enough on their shutter rate to even capture a plane moving that fast. It's photography 101. Two, there's no reason for them to point in that direction.

You are asking for something you think you know exists, but have no proof of its existence.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by IpsissimusMagus
 





Are seriously saying that there are no other videos that FBI has. That all the testimony about video tapes being confiscated is false?

I think they are saying that the other tapes do not contain images of the plane.
Not that they didn't confiscate a bunch of tapes.

Lack of evidence from the FBI does not constitute evidence of a conspiracy from you.

So far your evidence amounts to nothing more than a hunch.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by benoni


I like this photo the best when it comes to the PENTACON.


Remember the big fireballs at the wtc?

Remember the fireball we saw on the two frames allegedly showing a "plane" hitting the Pentacon??

Does this photo correspond with those supposed fireballs?Note the PC on the desk and the book on top of the chair...this is where "they' would have you believe the "plane" cut through the building.
Note the total lack of fire internally.

I don't give a monkey's how many staged photos you show me of wreckage so small as for it all to fit on my lounge floor...its all lies.

If wtc1 and 2 collapsed because of fire, wheres the fire on this photo?Why didn't it also collapse ?

After all, if that claptrap is good enough for wtc's 1 and 2, why does the same bullish#t not hold up to scrutiny here?

Bring whatever excuses to the table as you wish.

No plane hit the pentagon.


How wide is the collapsed area? It is not unreasonable to assume that the portion where the plane penetrated got smashed and burned and a wider area around of it collapsed at the seams, if the area is wide enough to account for a plan smashing inside it and an even wider area where portions of the building outside the diameter of the plane collapse at the seams.

If the collapsed area is not very wide, then it is indeed curious how that damage came to pass, when you compare it to the impact hole of the WTC. Maybe the lack of damage from the wings and the sturdy engines is because the pentagon is a very sturdy building? Also shouldnt the wings or even the body of the plane given how close it is have knocked out the lamp in the foreground?
edit on 7-6-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 





If you were planning the whole 911 thing what would you have used?


They should have asked Bin Laden this question before killing him and dumping his body in the ocean.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





Security cameras for one, are not fast enough on their shutter rate to even capture a plane moving that fast. It's photography 101.


See, this is where you're wrong and the whole OS falls apart.

Look at thislink

Really look at it now.

You claim the shutter is too slow. But look at the speed at which it captured the explosion.

There are at least 4 different still shots of the explosion as it happened. You can see the growth of the fireball.

That explosion took a split second. So I and any other "photography 101" student would disagree that the shutter speed is too slow.

If the camera can capture the explosion then it can capture the plane.
edit on 6/7/2012 by IpsissimusMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
But if you were planning 911 would you use two planes in NYC and bombs and missiles in DC?

I would have used the real flights in all three locations. The only problem with that all three towers would still be there today, long since repaired, and the Pentagon would have had comparatively very little damage to the interior. The result would be loads of problems for the Shadow Government because of these targets not being totally destroyed.

You cannot understand the logistics behind 911 until you look at the larger picture. For reasons you either don't care to explore or don't want coming out in the open, the Federal Reserve and the entire cabal associated with it would have been brought down shortly thereafter. It really isn't that complicated: Follow the money:

www.divinecosmos.com...

....at the end of World War II, at the Bretton Woods accords of 1944, Britain, France and the US were given the right to control the world’s currency. They were supposed to have a Marshall Plan to develop Africa and Asia as well as Europe. They reneged on their promise, and instead started to fake a “cold war” with the Soviet Union – which was designed to support the military industries.

Then, the group of non-aligned nations – 77 nations – pooled their assets… all their wealth, their gold and other valuables… and set up some global collateral accounts. They wanted to use this money to start the Marshall Plans for Asia and Africa.

President Kennedy agreed to go along with this after he found out that there was a group that was trying to very seriously get the Soviet Union and the United States to annihilate each other. This was the Cuban Missile Crisis. The historical accord is called the Hilton Green Memorial. This is available to any serious researcher in financial history.

President Sukarno [of Indonesia] was the signatory for the countries. He was going to give Kennedy – they gave Kennedy 140,000 tons of gold. Kennedy passed a law allowing Congress, not the Federal Reserve Board, to create dollars [from these gold-backed global collateral accounts given to the United States.] Kennedy also said, “Let’s go to the Moon, instead of this cold war, to stimulate industry. Let’s develop the poor countries and let’s develop space instead of having this fake Cold War.”

KENNEDY WAS ASSASSINATED – AND THE CLOCK RAN OUT IN 1994

Kennedy did put out a lot of money, but he was assassinated. As you know, the public space program just disappeared in the 1970s when that funding ran out, and just stopped completely. President Sukarno was hounded from office. The international agreement that left Britain, France and the United States in charge of the world’s financial system expired in 1994. That is why they wound down the Soviet Union. After 1994, there was no accord at the very top level of the world’s financial system about who would be in charge next. There was a split in the ranks.

CHINA AND NON-ALIGNED NATIONS WANTED FINANCIAL CONTROL

The Chinese and the non-aligned nations were pressuring the oligarchs who had been running things since World War II to hand over control of the dollar printing press – the financial system – but they were reluctant. The international court of justice at the Hague was sued by the Chinese over gold that the Federal Reserve Board owners sold them

THE FED HAD TO PAY UP ON SEPTEMBER 12, 2001

The Federal Reserve Board owners lost this lawsuit, and they were told to hand over the gold… starting on September 12, 2001. Instead, on September 11th, 2001, as you all know, they gave the world the finger and started this huge, fake, global war on terror. It was part of an attempt [at controlling the planet] by the fascist groups of World War II.


edit on 7-6-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-6-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 





I think they are saying that the other tapes do not contain images of the plane. Not that they didn't confiscate a bunch of tapes.


If they have other videos and are not releasing them it appears like a cover up of something.

The released video doesn’t show a plane either, so why not release the other videos too?



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 





The released video doesn’t show a plane either, so why not release the other videos too?

Several were but since they didn't show anything it's hard to find copies on the web.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by samkent
 





I think they are saying that the other tapes do not contain images of the plane. Not that they didn't confiscate a bunch of tapes.


If they have other videos and are not releasing them it appears like a cover up of something.

The released video doesn’t show a plane either, so why not release the other videos too?


Hi maxella, not sure if you saw my post here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is quite interesting regarding pentagon video footage, I've linked it into this thread in case you or anyone might find it of interest.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1

Are you saying this plane is flying at over 500 mph ?


Are you saying that this really matters? The no-planers are insisting there's some weird violation of physics for large planes to be flying at any sustainable speed at low altitudes, and this is a sustainable speed as well as a low altitude by anyone's definition.

If you want to bicker over the speed the plane was flying at, fine, as it's one of those details that really doesn't assist in creating any real division either way, but it's patently obvious that planes can in fact fly at low altitudes and it's patently obvious this "planes can't fly at low altitudes" bit those damned fool conspiracy web sites are passing around is entirely a case of barking up the wrong tree.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by maxella1

Are you saying this plane is flying at over 500 mph ?


Are you saying that this really matters? The no-planers are insisting there's some weird violation of physics for large planes to be flying at any sustainable speed at low altitudes, and this is a sustainable speed as well as a low altitude by anyone's definition.

If you want to bicker over the speed the plane was flying at, fine, as it's one of those details that really doesn't assist in creating any real division either way, but it's patently obvious that planes can in fact fly at low altitudes and it's patently obvious this "planes can't fly at low altitudes" bit those damned fool conspiracy web sites are passing around is entirely a case of barking up the wrong tree.



So the speed is irrelevant? Are you serious ?



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
When's the last time you saw a few guys cart off a 757 by hand in a few minutes time? Why are you so baffled that anybody would like to see some evidence of a 757 in the side of the Pentagon?


You just contradicted yourself. You HAVE evidence of "a 757 in the side of the Pentagon" with eyewitness accounts, photographs of plane wreckage, passenger effects, and the big one- the black box. You've just spent the last few pages coming up with weird "it's all planted by sinister secret agents" excuses for why you don't want to believe it's evidence. That's why I asked what it was you *would* accept as evidence and getting a straight answer out of you to explain why you accept nonexistant video and not any of the other evidence that does exist has been akin to nailing jam to the wall.


Why are we wrong for wanting to see at least a dent from the wings and tail section, when those very same parts were able to penetrate 18 inch thick steel beams on the side of the twin towers like a knife through butter? Are we supposed to believe that cement is that much stronger than steel? Then why could they not build skyscrapers above 20 floors until they learned how to use steel? Who mixed that magic concrete? You can't have it both ways, silly OS'er.


I have said more times than I can remember that I'm NOT an "OS"er, so if you need to cling to that lie in desperation to justify your conspiracy hoax then you're the only person here with questionable credibility, not me.


As a side note, I googled "sinister secret agents" for this site and came up with 57,900 hits. "Damned fool conspiracy websites" turned up a mere 4580 results. I would venture to guess the vast majority of them are yours. Don't you think its time to reprogram your auto-keystroke thingy? If you are actually typing this claptrap over and over again, wouldn't it be time to seriously have your OCD condition checked? I have a friend with similar issues and his doctor recommended some rather generous doses of Anafranil. It might really help you.


OR, it's the case that when people respond to my posts they include portions of my own post, including references to sinsiter secret agents, which artifically drives your count up which makes it meaningless. In which case, your instinctively gravitiating toward this being a sign of "sinister secret agents" as an answer for everything only confirms the point I was making to begin with.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by IpsissimusMagus
 


You know nothing about shutter speed. The explosion wasn't moving at 500 mph, and it was emitting its own light which was received by the camera's lens. The plane had to reflect light back into the lens of the camera, and it did not have a high enough shutter speed to capture the light that it reflected. The result is a blur, and as I have shown in a thread that I authored, the pixels of the blurred object shown in the security camera footage bears the colors of an American Airlines jet.

Seriously, apply critical thinking skills and common sense. You're not an idiot.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1

So the speed is irrelevant? Are you serious ?


Speed would be relevent as far as explaining the specific characteristics of damage we're seeing, certainly, but as to whether or not a plane actually hit, yes, it is irrelevent. We have all this other evidence from eyewitness accounts to plane wreckage to the black box recovered, so it is not for debate that it was flight 77 that hit the Pentagon.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by maxella1

So the speed is irrelevant? Are you serious ?


Speed would be relevent as far as explaining the specific characteristics of damage we're seeing, certainly, but as to whether or not a plane actually hit, yes, it is irrelevent. We have all this other evidence from eyewitness accounts to plane wreckage to the black box recovered, so it is not for debate that it was flight 77 that hit the Pentagon.


Well then why didn't the plane brake up prior to hitting the Pentagon?



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   

edit on 7-6-2012 by AFewGoodWomen because: wrong thread! Oops!



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by samkent
 





If you were planning the whole 911 thing what would you have used?


They should have asked Bin Laden this question before killing him and dumping his body in the ocean.


Hahahahahaha!
Yeah, they should have grilled poor old Bin before they made him vanish!

BTW, this might help the debate.

Nice little gif, makes it a bit clearer to see what hit the pentagon. Still see no plane here?!





A series of five images made by a surveillance camera on Sept. 11 which show American Airlines Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon were released today. Officials could not explain why the date and time in the bottom left corner of the images are incorrect


Source: www.boston.com...
edit on 7-6-2012 by kidtwist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Just a quick bit of maths to throw in here.
A quick Google earth measurement of the path the plane took over the lawn in front of the Pentagon before the memorial was built gives about 400 feet from pavement to wall.At 500 MPH it will travel 733 feet in one second and I'd GUESS that the view from the security camera covers about half of that lawn,so a distance of about 200 feet give or take that it would cover in about .25 of a second.So hang onto the fact that the plane would only be visible to this particular camera for a quarter of a second,even today CCTV uses frame rates as low as 3 FPS so an educated guess that back then we could have been quite a bit lower (don't forget this camera only needs to record the number plates of slow moving cars and the faces of drivers),maybe as low as 1 FPS.

Sorry if this has been done before but all this suggests to me that we'd only expect to see the plane in one frame anyway,and even then it's just luck the plane was visible when it recorded that now infamous frame because for the rest of the time it wasn't recording anything anyway.

To cut to the chase,the FBI or CIA or who ever haven't tampered with the tape or edited out the missing frames because they just weren't there in the first place.This is low quality and low frame rate CCTV and NOT broadcast quality high frame rate,so we are seeing here exactly what we should expect to see.

Actually looking at the CCTV stills again,we only see the same time stamp on the first three images (17:37:19) and on the others the same time stamp on two consecutive images so I'd guess at about 2 frames per second which is about right for this sort of thing.




top topics



 
15
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join