Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Hotel CCTV Video of 9/11 Pentagon Explosion... And NO Plane!

page: 24
90
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 





Never looked at the original image have you. Here's a hint: there's a hole.


There's a a hole indeed, but not one that would form such a debris cloud.




So cameras can't automatically zoom? Better tell my camera then (it autozooms when I switch modes) The fact that you asked a question and then immediately dismissed the answer shows exactly your attitude here. You're pretending that you're considering what I am saying, but in reality you're dismissing it without question.


Don't know what you are on about, the guy said he changed the lense, but the picture dkidn't show any difference in zoom, it was a proven lie.




Ace didn't prove that, he just proved that one shot was rebroadcast with a banner on it. Are banners on live events particularly unusual in your country as they are definitely normal news footage here.


Not filling half the screen obscuring the money shot of the biggest news story ever. That is not normal, it was never broadcast again I think, and I know it has been removed from the archives and replaced with other footage which looks as if it was broadcast that way, that day. I know, cause I looked for it.




My point is that ace thinks the whole video was faked in a few hours but also thinks that some are real time modified. He uses whatever bizarre rationalisations are needed to fit in with the idea that it's a 'nose-out' and not just protruding debris. The other films prove that it is just debris, and that's why Ace calls them fake.


The other films show a ridiculously photoshopped metallic blob, and are proven fakes on other points at least, but we''ll get there eventually.




Look at yourself. Not only are you denying things that are plain to see, but you're inventing excuses for them just in case it is true. You're not looking at the evidence, you're looking at how to come to a particular conclusion.


I don't see a difference, how have you established it, where is your evidence?




Enough said, you don't want to know what happened that day, you just want to repeat this idea that everything was fake all because something that looks sorta somewhat like a fuzzy blob protruded from the towers. Prove me wrong.


We are just starting. Again, the news anchor watching the footage live could see what the blobs were. He didn't say that blob looked like the front of the plane. He said the plane went through.
edit on 28-11-2012 by WoodSpirit because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


More questions:

How do you account for the suspicious stock trades before 9/11? There are too many to list here, but it's well known. And in fact, there were investigations about this. For example:

In early September 2001, there is a sharp increase in short selling of American and United Airlines stocks.


Ernst Welteke, the President of a German central bank, says that his bank has done a study. “There are ever clearer signs that there were activities on international financial markets that must have been carried out with the necessary expert knowledge.” His researchers have found “almost irrefutable proof of insider trading.”


During the time of the 9/11 Commission, the families pressed for answers about this suspicious trading.

2) Zogby International took a poll that concluded “half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens overall say that some of our leaders “knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act.” That's a big number. How do you account for this?
Especially since the main stream media wasn't contributing to that idea at all. Where and why did such a large number of people come up with this idea? Is everyone crazy but you?


In August 2006, Scripps Howard/Ohio University conducted a poll that concluded, “more than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East.”


3) Care to account for the following high level statement?


Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission John Farmer states in his upcoming book, “at some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened.”


4) There are several indications that Osama Bin Laden has been protected, and even allowed to escape after the 9/11 attacks. I mean, I couldn't believe the guy lived as long as he did. In this day and age, the fact that they couldn't find a 7 foot man if they wanted to was beyond the belief of most of the people in the world. Lots of documentation on this if you'd like to see.

5) Care to comment?

In the fall of 2003, former National Security Advisor to President Clinton, Sandy Berger, “removed classified documents from the National Archives, hid them under a construction trailer and later tried to find the trash collector to retrieve them, the agency’s internal watchdog said Wednesday.” [...] “Berger took the documents in the fall of 2003 while working to prepare himself and Clinton administration witnesses for testimony to the Sept. 11 commission. Berger was authorized as the Clinton administration’s representative to make sure the commission got the correct classified materials.”


6) Hard to dispute that several companies friendly to the Bush Administration as well as others, and several partners in the “War On Terror” have benefitted from the 9/11 attacks. What say you?

7 )ex-CIA Analyst Ray McGovern was asked what he thought could be the possible motives for (the gov) doing something as horrible as 9/11. He mentioned an acronym for “O.I.L.” that he created. “O for oil, I for Israel, and L for the logistical bases necessary to exert military capability in that part of the world.” Do you find it interesting that people much smarter and more qualified than you feel there was something behind 9/11?

I think you're facing an uphill battle my friend.

edit on 28-11-2012 by MRuss because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by WoodSpirit
There's a a hole indeed, but not one that would form such a debris cloud.

Because you say so?


Don't know what you are on about, the guy said he changed the lense, but the picture dkidn't show any difference in zoom, it was a proven lie.

He says he introduces a 2x TC element into the lens path. Having the camera automatically zoom out so it frames the exact same scene is not something that I'd find too shocking. It's not a proven lie just because you say so.


Not filling half the screen obscuring the money shot of the biggest news story ever. That is not normal

What a shock, again it's not normal because you say so. It seems that all of your 'evidence' is just your personal preference.


it was never broadcast again I think, and I know it has been removed from the archives and replaced with other footage which looks as if it was broadcast that way, that day. I know, cause I looked for it.
edit on 28-11-2012 by WoodSpirit because: (no reason given)

So that's the crux of your argument is it? Everyone is lying, everything is fake because you say so and there's no way a news station would use a banner on 911? Come on man, it's a very weak claim.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by MRuss
How do you account for the suspicious stock trades before 9/11? There are too many to list here, but it's well known. And in fact, there were investigations about this. For example:

It was already accounted for, a trading newsletter advised these trades and there was no connection they could find.


2) Zogby International took a poll that concluded “half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens overall say that some of our leaders “knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act.” That's a big number. How do you account for this?
Especially since the main stream media wasn't contributing to that idea at all. Where and why did such a large number of people come up with this idea? Is everyone crazy but you?

Yeah I don't really think that coming up with selective polls of Americans is going to convince me I'm wrong. I can show you comparable polls about belief that Obama is a Muslim, or that Satan exists. Doesn't really prove much eh?


3) Care to account for the following high level statement?

Why don't you ask John Farmer if he believes it was an inside job? Why post quotes from people that you should know do not support what you are trying to infer?


4) There are several indications that Osama Bin Laden has been protected, and even allowed to escape after the 9/11 attacks. I mean, I couldn't believe the guy lived as long as he did. In this day and age, the fact that they couldn't find a 7 foot man if they wanted to was beyond the belief of most of the people in the world. Lots of documentation on this if you'd like to see.

Sorry, now the US is covering things up because they can't find an actively protected tall man in a world of 6 billion? That's just ridiculous.


5) Care to comment?

Not really, you're just pulling anything out of your hat now. This is called 'Just Asking Questions' and it's utterly utterly pointless. You can ask as many questions as you like but sooner or later you have to look at the facts.


6) Hard to dispute that several companies friendly to the Bush Administration as well as others, and several partners in the “War On Terror” have benefitted from the 9/11 attacks. What say you?

I'm sure they have. Is that the whole sum of the evidence though? I benefited when my friend lost a contract, does that mean I made him lose that contract?


7 )ex-CIA Analyst Ray McGovern was asked what he thought could be the possible motives for (the gov) doing something as horrible as 9/11. He mentioned an acronym for “O.I.L.” that he created. “O for oil, I for Israel, and L for the logistical bases necessary to exert military capability in that part of the world.” Do you find it interesting that people much smarter and more qualified than you feel there was something behind 9/11?

Not particularly. I would happily spar with Ray any day. You obviously don't care that people smarter and more qualified than you disagree with you, why should I?


I think you're facing an uphill battle my friend.

I think you're living in a fantasy world. It's been a decade since 911 and the truth movement is weaker than ever. This forum is almost dead, no popular site contains any large 911 contingent and the loudest voice recently has been cluesforums who claim that some of the victims are fake.

911 truth is dead, and I only come here cause I'm bored and currently waiting for a gigantic transfer to complete across a continent.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 





He says he introduces a 2x TC element into the lens path. Having the camera automatically zoom out so it frames the exact same scene is not something that I'd find too shocking. It's not a proven lie just because you say so.


Hard time reading or on purpose?

He lies because he didn't change a thing, the pic is exactly the same before and after the fade.




What a shock, again it's not normal because you say so. It seems that all of your 'evidence' is just your personal preference.


In your world every anamoly is normal even though they are stacked up to the ceiling.




So that's the crux of your argument is it? Everyone is lying, everything is fake because you say so and there's no way a news station would use a banner on 911? Come on man, it's a very weak claim.


The camera guy´s excuse is a proven lie, things are fake because they don´t correspond with reality, the footage was removed from the archives and replaced, and the banner obscuring the whole shot is not normal.
edit on 28-11-2012 by WoodSpirit because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by WoodSpirit
Hard time reading or on purpose?

He lies because he didn't change a thing, the pic is exactly the same before and after the fade.

How many times does it have to be explained to you that it could easily be the camera zooming out.
1 * 0.5 * 2 = 1

By your logic those multiplications don't exist.


In your world every anamoly is normal even though they are stacked up to the ceiling.
edit on 28-11-2012 by WoodSpirit because: (no reason given)

Anomalies are normal and it's common to have lots of them. Enough said.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 





How many times does it have to be explained to you that it could easily be the camera zooming out. 1 * 0.5 * 2 = 1 By your logic those multiplications don't exist.


Unbelievable, why would you put on extender if you are not going to zoom in, it´s bull.




Anomalies are normal and it's common to have lots of them. Enough said.


No, just beginning, the coming days there will be anamolies you won´t be able to deny away.

Btw, how many people are in your team?
edit on 28-11-2012 by WoodSpirit because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


Well, thanks for staying up and answering my questions. I thought your replies were intelligent and your points were taken.

I am not invested in whether or not 9/11 was an inside job. I do believe that there are a lot of unanswered questions--and I'm not sure your answers were all palatable. For instance---9/11 stock trading. It's easy for some government agency or insider to declare it all a misunderstanding of some sort and close the books. If you're getting your answers or ideas from people who are heavily invested in a cover-up, then they're not really answers.

For some reason, a lot of things don't add up for a lot of people. For some, it's more than a feeling.

I'm not surprised the movement is dying. So did the JFK assasination eventually------but I suppose you are an Oswald was the only shooter fan.

I don't think people have the energy anymore to fight city hall.

Whatever is going on in this world---we just let it go on. Lies, murders, deaths, loss of liberties, immorality, loss of freedoms, celebrity worship-----pick your poison.

But no one has the energy to fight it all anymore.

We just throw up our hands and walk away.

That's a sad thing.

There will be more catastrophies to come. This is earth after all.

Do you have the inclination that the government is lilly white in all manner of events?

Or is it just 911?



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by WoodSpirit
Unbelievable, why would you put on extender if you are not going to zoom in, it´s bull.

Now you claim that you know what the cameraman was thinking! All to try and stick to the claim that a blurry blob is a plane nose.


No, just beginning, the coming days there will be anamolies you won´t be able to deny away.

People have been saying that for over a decade


Btw, how many people are in your team?
edit on 28-11-2012 by WoodSpirit because: (no reason given)

I don't have a team. It doesn't take a team to see that Ace Baker is off his rocker.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by MRuss
Well, thanks for staying up and answering my questions. I thought your replies were intelligent and your points were taken.

Thank you. It's getting quite late here so I will be vanishing shortly, but I have enjoyed answering your questions.


I am not invested in whether or not 9/11 was an inside job. I do believe that there are a lot of unanswered questions--and I'm not sure your answers were all palatable. For instance---9/11 stock trading. It's easy for some government agency or insider to declare it all a misunderstanding of some sort and close the books. If you're getting your answers or ideas from people who are heavily invested in a cover-up, then they're not really answers.

I'll say this much. The FBI accidentally forgot to redact the name of this stock pamphlet from some documents they released to 911 myths at some point. I don't want to name the publication explicitly but I happen to know that the name is out there.


For some reason, a lot of things don't add up for a lot of people. For some, it's more than a feeling.

I'm not so sure I know what that means, but general suspicion is pretty much what fuels these theories.


I'm not surprised the movement is dying. So did the JFK assasination eventually------but I suppose you are an Oswald was the only shooter fan.

I'm afraid so. I also know that the moon landing was real (Astronomy is my true interest!). Have you read Vincent Bugliosi's book? I have loaned my copy out temporarily but it is a very very interesting book and heavy enough to knock you unconcious if you drop it in bed



Whatever is going on in this world---we just let it go on. Lies, murders, deaths, loss of liberties, immorality, loss of freedoms, celebrity worship-----pick your poison.

But no one has the energy to fight it all anymore.

We just throw up our hands and walk away.

That's a sad thing.

I agree. I took some comfort in the election of Obama but he's still very much a centre/right politician, nowhere near as socialist as I would like.


Do you have the inclination that the government is lilly white in all manner of events?

Or is it just 911?

It's not even in 911. I'm sure that there's plenty of arse covering, incompetence and perhaps even some direct maliciousness. I don't trust governments any more than I trust corporations. It's just that the evidence provided with 911 stacks up very well. The NIST report satisfied a lot of curiosities and combined with closer looks at the video and events of the day has led me to believe that events occurred mostly as stated. Enough that I don't believe these conspiracy theories anyhow, except perhaps LIHOP.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 





Now you claim that you know what the cameraman was thinking! All to try and stick to the claim that a blurry blob is a plane nose.


He said he put on the extender to zoom closer, but there was no change in zoom, this is the 4th time.




People have been saying that for over a decade


You were a debunker in 2001?

I am going to love to see you weasel your way out.




I don't have a team. It doesn't take a team to see that Ace Baker is off his rocker.


You sure write for two.

Also, again, it is not about Ace, pictures don't lie.
edit on 28-11-2012 by WoodSpirit because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by WoodSpirit
He said he put on the extender to zoom closer, but there was no change in zoom, this is the 4th time.

Actually he said he added the extended because he knew that he would have to zoom further. The plane impacted before the extender was on.

I just think you are incapable of understanding this from any perspective but your own.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 





Actually he said he added the extended because he knew that he would have to zoom further. The plane impacted before the extender was on.


There was no extender put on cause the image didn't change, you are obviously playing games here.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by WoodSpirit
You were a debunker in 2001?

I am going to love to see you weasel your way out.

I don't need to weasel my way out. Once again you have misinterpreted and decided that you're right even though it makes no sense. Conspiracy Theorists have been repeating the claim that the hoax will be 'uncovered soon' for more than a decade. Perhaps you can understand now.


You sure write for two.

Thanks!


Also, again, it is not about Ace, pictures don't lie.
edit on 28-11-2012 by WoodSpirit because: (no reason given)

Pictures constantly lie. Especially when they're viewed with an integral bias. If you don't think pictures lie, go look at any advertisement.


There was no extender put on cause the image didn't change, you are obviously playing games here.

I have explained this multiple times. Please read my posts or I am done with this 'conversation'.
edit on 28/11/12 by exponent because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 





Pictures constantly lie. Especially when they're viewed with an integral bias. If you don't think pictures lie, go look at any advertisement.


More sidestepping bs. If you rob and get caught on camera, the judge is not gonna buy that bs. The pictures speak for themselves.

I'll show you tomorrow.
edit on 28-11-2012 by WoodSpirit because: (no reason given)





I have explained this multiple times. Please read my posts or I am done with this 'conversation'.


You have not explained why the zoom has not changed even though an extender is allegedly put on.right when he is filming an impact, when he knows this will fade the image to black, which actually probably isn't even true either.

Btw, nice to see you have such widespread interests in the variety of subjects on this site.

The past months you have almost exclusively posted in the 911 forum. Is it your favorite conspiracy theory to not believe in?

Always amazed by the dedication of the seemingly organised and trained 911 "debunker". Were you just bored waiting for transfers all the time while in your favorite forum?
edit on 28-11-2012 by WoodSpirit because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   
well, i've just caught up, reading every single post since my request of yesterday
and i'm sorry, Exponent et al
you've all been intelligent and salient and far more on-topic than i,
but nothing that any of you have said in any way adequately explains what is shown in that film..
no one has even raised any points that have made me wonder and re-watch to double-check..
yes, i know and appreciate that it's a long video and that Ace is Barking....
but man those are SO not reasons to throw out what he has caught.
And yes, viewed on it's own, the nose-out phenom would be conspiracy stretching at it's finest
but the evidence just goes on... and on.... and on.
i find it hard to believe that a debris exit cloud would be the exact size and shape of a plane entering the other side of the building... but hard to believe is not impossible.
but then it just gets harder and harder to swallow... why is the plane not visible in the zoomed out part of the approach? what is the deal with that 'extender'? every time i've ever done anything to the lens of a camera i am using there have been visual differences, even autozoom and autofocus can't just magically jump to match the exact frame displayed before.
back to that debris cloud, surely if it is the size and shape of a plane there should be a plane-sized hole in the other side of the building? since there is not, surely that would effect the characteristics of the cloud? most clouding phenomena i have witnessed tend only to act as a solid object in the absence of actual solid objects [like walls]
...
okay, that's all in one video and it's tiny and poor resolution and all that stuff, i'm not willing to stake my reputation as a functioning member of society on one tiny blurry video....
but that's unfortunately just the beginning.
why do other videos show such willdly differing things?
the over/under puffball is undeniable; it doesn't matter what it represents, the simple fact is that in one video it is above the wing and in another it is below. how can that possibly be? at least one video can NOT be right.
why does the plane appear to just gracefully glide into the building like one or both of them are not even there? where is the crumpling and the damaging and the bits going everywhere?
speaking of not being there, where is the damage that should be caused by the wing, especially visible in the naudet video? there was a great post illustrating this not long ago, and when you watch the clip you can see the wingtip standing proud of the surrounding [undamaged!] wall for a few frames before it too slides in like... well, like a ghost plane.
it's sensationalist i know but how can this be explained by anything that makes sense in the real world?
add in the clips of all those people saying things like "i didn't see or hear a plane, there was just an explosion"
and realise that confirmation bias works both ways, especially in massive shocking events that are over in seconds, leave incredible damage, and get replayed on television for a month straight...
and then it slowly begins to dawn that you are genuinely starting to sound like a no-planer...
this is not how i wanted to go!
somebody please! can we leave the ridiculing of each other and our beliefs, the casting of aspertions on the fabric of the characters involved and the nebulous he-said-she-said merry-go-round that only takes you further down the road you wish to follow
and address what we can see going on?

also, sorry to perpetuate further off-topic discussion.... back on for a nano, i think the little smudge we see is far too indistinct to do anything but further back up whatever claims you wish to make about events. TOO suspicious that no other footage [blurry, indistinct, and useless as this as it may be] has been released.
hmm... since i have already just turned myself into a no-plane nut, why not go the whole conspiracy hog?
why do we have JUST enough footage to continue the argument, but not resolve it? why does this seem to happen so frequently? there is something we are missing here and it feels like something big.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by CthulhuMythos
 


My former Commanding Officer, was on duty at the Pentagon that day. His office was on the outer ring at the edge of the impact zone. He saw the plane crossing the highway. He woke up at Bethesda Naval Hospital that night. There were not any bombs, no hidden wreckage, no sinister US government plots. ALL of the evidence shows that American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757, slammed into the Pentagon that day. Eyewitnesses, radar tracks, wreckage, human remains belonging to the people known to have been on board Flight 77 were recovered at the Pentagon as well as personal effects belonging to the people known to have been on board.......its the ONLY explanation that fits the evidence.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by MRuss
 


The stock options, were all based on legitimate, public domain information. Throughout August, the airlines were putting out reports about a fall off in their earnings, and assorted other issues that would lead to their stocks dropping in value. And had the German bank done PROPER research, they would have found several times in 2000-2001 where the options against United and American were equal/greater than the options placed immeadiately prior to 9/11.

John Farmer, did indeed say what your partially quoted, but he was speaking about the attempt by the government to cover up the ineptitude shown by various officials and agencies. He believes that the final report gives an ACCURATE accounting of the hows, and whys of the events leading to the attacks and the attacks themselves.

Osama Bin Laden living as long as he did. Adolf Hitler was not declared legally dead until the early 50s.....or do you think that George Bush was hiding him too?

Sandy Berger, stole documents to cover up the inept Clinton Administration. Nothing more.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 11:49 PM
link   
I have been following this thread and joining in periodically. Can I ask this - can one person provide one photograph or shot from a video - that clearly shows a plane approaching the pentagon.

Not a blob or blur or a shape that you tell me is a plane. A distinct and clear photograph and/or shot from a video that shows me - so I can see clearly for myself - a large jet plane - travelling towards the pentagon - along the ground - just before it slams into the building.

This will clear the argument up for me. I need to see for myself an image that I recognise to be a jet plane. Can anyone do this or does the government not want us to see the images????!!!!!

With all the mobile phones and digital cameras and security cameras all over the place - I find it hard to believe that there is not one single photograph/moving picture of a huge jet plane flying towards the pentagon or even a shot of it low to the ground just prior to impact.

Much Peace...



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Who said you had to prove anything? I was simply pointing out that your theory as to a Predator firing a cruise missile was flawed.






top topics



 
90
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join


Help ATS Recover with your Donation.
read more: Help ATS Recover With Your Contribution