Pentagon - No camera footage = No plane. A reasonable assumption.

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by Human_Alien

 

Ya think???????

I understand that the images you post are total invented hogwash.

You "understand" ???????????


Did you think I was trying to pass them off as REAL??

I was giving a rendition of what (probably) happened and why there are no more videos made available. I never thought I would be explaining that!!!!

OMG!!!!
Check please!!!

reply to post by Human_Alien


OMG that video of that witness liar .... hahahahaha.... hi is taking souvenirs

Or in other more serious words , he must face criminal charges beacause he is taking evidence from crime scene (from biggest crime in 21 st century).This is simply a law .And the Fox News is encouraging him ..WOW ,WOW

Nice video , this shows how debunkers here are hopeless by each passing day.

i remember seeing somthing about this on yt and made me think i see pics of the security guys carring the parts of the plane, bit odd if i must say

reply to post by mikelee


mike.....have you forgotten that I'm a pilot?

This video you posted:

www.youtube.com...

...is, as it clearly says on the caption in the beginning, a "staged" demonstration.

It is an excerpt from an (obviously) United Airlines training video for people hired to work Ground Service positions. People hired off the street, from all walks of life, who may, or MAY NOT, understand the forces of a STATIC jet engine running at high thrust settings on the ground.

However, watch again, and note special attention to that "truck"....obviously, it was unoccupied, since it was a wild "ride" in the engine blast. BUT, look even closer -- it had NO ENGINE!! It had been lightened, to give it more visual ooomph!

Anyway, the jet exhaust blast velocity from an engine that is in flight is completely different from that STATIC demonstration. (It's a matter of physics.....the energy of the blast, when the engine isn't moving, is concentrated IN the blast. In flight? The energy is being expended to produce the forward motion of the airplane....).

OH! And, here..a much better, longer version....with original soundtrack!!!:



Here....ever been to St. Maarten? Beach, right along airport perimeter, and at end of the runway. Again, initially the airplane is powering up, and it is similar to the STATIC demonstration above....and there's only a bit more distance:




Watch the difference, this time...jet LANDING, same beach, same runway. Passes about 35-40 feet over the people's heads:



Here's a collection of still pics, and some fence-draggers in this bunch!!! (BTW....you should be aware of the sorts of power settings at that point in the landing approach....usually approximately 65% to 75% of normal cruise thrust....the power is not brought back to idle until just about the last ten feet -- or less -- of descent, when over the runway):



In that one above....just wanted to point out the KLM 747 there, seen from 1:27 onward. He is on his way, in endeavoring to squeak it right to the "edge", to a violation of rules. Though, I doubt he ever got turned in. The part of the pavement with the yellow painted chevrons? That is the overrun and is not approved for taxi, takeoff or landing operations. It's emergency extra for the other direction of that runway. Looks like he just kissed it, so it was a photo finish....

______
Ah, heck, just one more, 'cause it's pretty. THIS guy is also, like above, aiming to put it ON THE NUMBERS!! (Pilot term....means right as close to the edge as possible...where the runway numbers are painted). In most "normal" landing situations, the glidepath intersects the pavement at a point roughly 1,000 feet past the "threshold", as it's technically called:



That KLM 747 pilot wanted that extra 1,000 feet of runway ahead of him, not behind him....makes stopping before running off the other end a lot easier.....

reply to post by Human_Alien

Did you think I was trying to pass them off as REAL??

No.

I was giving a rendition of what (probably) happened and why there are no more videos made available.

That is the hogwash part.

reply to post by mikelee


Good Post!

Sure, some people might be hired to blog dis-info. At our company, these people are usually in forums to manage to the companies identity, or see that employees don't bash it. Do you think the Government or pro-Bush Crime Family people don't do the same? If you've stolen billions of dollars and committed war crimes -- well, it seems like an INVESTMENT to me.


>> on your point about the drone aircraft -- I figure the SIMPLEST scenario for what happened is; The passenger plane flew over the Pentagon. The blast -- whether it was a bomb or a drone aircraft, would attract all the attention and the smoke and fire would cover up the flight. It's interesting that we ALWAYS get this one angle -- only this angle. It's just what Magicians do to make audiences believe what the direct them to see. They ALWAYS watch the empty hand.

Not that I really KNOW what happened at the Pentagon. There isn't enough evidence to really know anything -- and that's the point. If what the Bush government told us was the truth -- they'd have at least a dozen bits of video footage to prove it. They'd have bodies and a reconstructed plane. They'd have few labs around the country and even in foreign lands, looking over the debris to PROVE there was nothing but jet fuel.

>> What are the chances that the same Lab that sent the Anthrax, was the same lab that was tasked with investigating the incident? About 100% if the people who are intimidating politicians who don't want to go to war are calling the shots.

reply to post by weedwhacker


You comments about the thrust of a STATIC jet and one landing seem quite accurate. The problem is, you've got a lot of people with a LITTLE bit of knowledge, who just enjoy a conspiracy to use their considerable skills from watching CSI to show how smart they are.

>> HOWEVER, while I don't believe half the 'theories" of what a real plane would do -- because I figure that a real plane went to the Pentagon -- I mean, Bin Laden or Dick Cheney don't seem the type to shed a tear for "necessary deaths" -- it's just that WHY IS THERE NO VIDEO?

They could have laid this stuff to rest a long time ago by releasing everything in a timely manner. They COULD HAVE doctored up a 3D video by now with all the technology we have for manipulating visuals -- they just don't need to.

It seems to me; they don't care. They have enough people in the Media, who won't look beyond their paychecks, and they've got enough comfortable Americans who don't seem to lose sleep that innocent people are in prison getting raped or that some kid made their kids toy for $30 a month.

While we are all debating whether a plane hit the Pentagon or not -- we are ten years into a bogus war. The financial system almost collapsed and they bailed it out so that Big Bank could get free loans to eat up Little Bank -- all so that you and I can be denied a refinance because they don't figure we will have a job in a few months. They increase their interest fees because we are a BIGGER RISK -- and therefore, we are less able to pay. Banks couldn't operate a day without we the people backing them up -- and yet, they act like they own the economy, don't they?

Bush and Cheney will be dead and buried before we get a release of documents for the JFK assassination -- maybe not even then if Jeb Bush's kids get in office. It doesn't matter that a tens of thousands of people realize we don't live in a Democracy or that 9/11 was either ALLOWED or MADE to happen by the Bush Crime Syndicate -- there is NO DOUBT IN MY MIND anymore that they were complicit.

>> Whether you think a bunch of idiots are trapped in a delusion or not; you are living in a country that went from #1, to a third world country in your lifetime. The joke is on all of us. So we can argue about hand-gun laws, and gay marriage but we are ALL going to be working off a debt on land we don't own with rented tools in another decade. And the best career choices will be; a mercenary protecting the Robber Barons polished stuff, or a Prostitute, polishing their private parts.

Originally posted by xavi1000

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
And your proof of the pentagon Expecting an attack? Have any? Didn't think so~ Assumptions once again.

edit on 28-12-2010 by Whereweheaded because: (no reason given)

Lol , It's common sense and logic that Penthagon was expecting attack 30 min after second airplane hit the twin towers .Which building by your logic will expecting attack ? Mc donalds head quarters? D.C. Library ?

The ONLY defense that the Pentagon has is really convincing stories of incompetence.
... since we can only take them at their word -- let's send them all on a one-way ticket to Uzbekistan and start over. Get rid of standing armies, and make sure EVERY action taken is recorded and available to everyone to see. Why would this work? Because the ONLY thing motivating people to attack us, is because we have nothing but Corporate-controlled spooks, assassinating anyone who won't roll over for their sponsors, and lying hacks who lose $2 Trillion dollars -- either they are building underground bunkers for the Armageddon (I missed by invite), or they are merely embezzling it. Either way, we are far more at risk with OUR SECRET SECURITY APPARATUS, than a thousand and one former Saudis Princes who hide in caves and screw little boys. It's too much like a 700 Club Convention to shock me any more.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by dubiousone
What agent McGuire does not say is as important as what she does say. Notice that she does not say that none of the videos identifiably reveal the object as it approached the Pentagon. She merely says that none of the other videos show the impact. That's a clever bit of careful wordsmithing plainly designed to throw the trackers off the scent.

OR...you're so desperate to find even a microbe of actual tangible evidence to back up these sinister secret plots you're "so sure" is there somewhere that you'll even microanalyze other people's grammer and punctuation looking for hidden meanings. This isn't research. It's a Rorschach test.

Tell me, how come you're not going over the grammer and punctuation of the hundred or so eyewitnesses who testify they specifically saw flight 77 hitting the Pentagon? Those people were all there and saw with their own eyes what happened. Agent McGuire wasn't.

Why? Gee, Dave, is your analytical wizardry failing you during this mid-holiday week? Too much egg nog perhaps?

It's because they aren't sitting on a pile of videos saying, "You don't need to see them, just trust me, your super trustworthy gub'mint agent, when I tell you they don't show nuttin', nuttin' at all, so don't worry your pretty little heads about nuttin', nuttin' at all!"

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

post removed by staff

All right, fine. Please explain why I should believe everything Dylan Avery and Alex Jones says rather than the eyewitnesses why were actually there at the Pentagon and saw that it was flight 77 that hit it. It's an honest question so it deserves an honest answer.

Eyewitness accounts of the Pentagon attack

While you're at it, please explain to me that if I'm the one with an agenda then why is it that getting a straight answer out of you conspiracy people on this is like trying to nail jam to the wall.

edit on Tue Dec 28 2010 by DontTreadOnMe because: quoted post removed by staff

It's because of that damn fool "confirmation bias" thing which one of your truster buddies told us all about in a post on this or a related thread. Psychological biases such as your now dreaded "confirmation bias" apply across the board to trusters, such as yourself, and not only to those engaged in a sincere search for truth and justice ("truthers"). Perhaps it's time for some deep soul searching over there. Bet you wish your compadre' hadn't pulled that cat outta the bag, eh:

reply to post by mikelee


Anyone who doesn't believe a plane hit the Pentagon needs to have their heads examined. I, and hundreds of other commuters in the DC area, actually saw the plane impact the Pentagon on 9/11 as I was driving to work - 395 isn't that far from the Pentagon and you can see the building from the highway. All of your "there's no video" idiocy is simply misplaced. There are hundreds of people who would testify under oath they saw a plane hit the Pentagon. You weren't there. Fine. It doesn't make it untrue. As for any video footage, if there was any, it likely was all confiscated for security and NTSB analysis and then kept by the Government. File a FOIA request and see what they say.

Face it, bad things happen in the world and they're not always caused by a nefarious conspiracy of your own leaders. This was a conspiracy launched by people inside and outside the United States who are opposed to our concepts of pluralism, tolerance and freedom and want to impose a narrow ideological framework on the entire world. Read "The Looming Tower: Al-Queda and the Path to 9/11." It documents the utter failure of our leaders to understand the threats coming from Islamic extremists despite the vast amounts of information the FBI and Army Intelligence had going back to before the FIRST World Trade Center attacks. Our government is incompetent, not evil.

FYI - The only documented false flag attack in US history is that on the USS Maine in Cuba, which precipitated our entry into the Spanish-American War, and resulted in our acquisition of the Phillipines and Cuba.

reply to post by Uneven Steven


The accounts such as yours are worthless on ATS and worthless as evidence because you can't prove anything you say, you could be lying and could be anyone.

You don't expect people to just take your word for it do you?

www.thepentacon.com...

Eyewitness Testimony

So many conflicting "eyewitness" accounts. The sum of which proves nothing either way. IMO, it's all a wash. That being said, many questions remain unanswered. And that is completely unacceptable.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

So in other words, you weren't there. You saw ten seconds of aerial television footage of a burned out hole and instantly decided you were a crash site forensics specialist and knew what to look for. I will ask again- what expertise in crash site analysis do you have? Can you look at wreckage and determine wither they crashed while doing a belly landing vs head on into the ground, as United 93 did?

Are you deliberately ignoring what people write, just so you can jot down your repetitive drivel Davyboy?

I saw that this was written immediately;

I read an article (I forget what site as it was a few years ago), that the county coroner arrived and found no bodies to account for.

So why didn't you see it? Or did you see it, and just hoped other people wouldn't?

So, no..he doesn't think he's a crash site forensics specialist, he *said* he remembered reading about a crash site forensics specialist instead of claiming to be one. At the very least, he was on about someone who is accustomed to recovering bodies from all sorts of accident and crime scene, a coroner, who is a specialist.

Do try to keep up.

reply to post by OuttaTime

I watched it live for HOURS. Just because you watch a football game on TV does it then imply that a game actually happened there? I am no more a crash expert than you are apparently. Enough with the Alex Jones rhetoric already. I don't follow any of his material. And the answer yo ask for... a motive? Wow, I hope you atleast figured that out. Axis of Evil? Iraq2? CIA murders of civilians in Pakistan? Iran? Vast oil reserves?

You missed a few off the motives list mate.

2.3 Trillion motives actually.

reply to post by spikey

You mean the same Wally Miller who said

“Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller said the remains are expected to be so minute that radiology and DNA testing may be the only means of positively identifying the victims.” - Associated Press (September 12, 2001)

“We’ve been going through this area inch by inch. The remains are beginning to come,” said Somerset County coroner Wallace Miller. “It will be quite some time until we can identify whoever a person might be.” - Associated Press (September 13, 2001)

“It would be nearly an hour before Miller came upon his first trace of a body part…some fragment of each of the dead had been positively identified, either by DNA or, in a few cases, fingerprints.” - Washington Post (May 12, 2002)

That quote-mine is so old, it's embarassing that it's still being touted as the truth.

reply to post by OuttaTime

And to reference your point of crash forensics, check this link to compare crashsites of 2 similar incidents. The 93 site looks more like back-hoe practice. I don't understand how a passenger plane can vanish into that hole. Oh, and just FYI, I studied private investigation and CSI, did construction and industrial mechanical work for 20 years. I don't drive a desk.

No, neither do i understand how.

I also don't understand how Flight 77 is supposed to be able to be both like a flying aluminium soda can, relatively weak iow, which is often used as an explanation as to how a large passenger aircraft can simply, more or less disintegrate upon impact with a reinforced concrete wall, and yet tough enough, to allow the flimsy nose cone to impact the exterior reinforced concrete wall, travel through the office, out of the office, through two more double walls, finally 'punching out' a nice, circular, nose-cone shaped hole of the last wall...

How does that work exactly?

ET's? Alternate dimensions? Wormholes in time and space? A blip in the physical integrity of our reality?

How?

Especially how, when many of 'goodoldave's' precious eyewitnesses he/she keeps repeating to people, have testified that they saw the nose cone buckle upwards, and disintegrate...

If there was ever a nuclear war, i think we should all grab a 757 nose cone and shelter underneath the thing...it will obviously be the safest place to be, if you believe the OS regarding what it can do to and survive impact with reinforced concrete walls...office equipment...steel girders...brick walls etc.

reply to post by roboe


I don't mean anyone in particular.

I was merely pointing out to goodoldaveyboy, that outtatime had mentioned a coroner in his post, that was conveniently overlooked in the reply to him.

I have no knowledge or information of who, or what the coroner said or did.

Seems like there are quite a few people who either don't read a post properly, or twist what is being posted in order to make a point.

Go back and read what i said, you'll see what i meant..probably.

While i am aware that bodies *were* found in the debris, the only images or evidence of bodies i have seen is of the Pentagon office workers.

Although strangely (imo) the majority of images i have seen of bodies at the Pentagon (used in the prosecution of a suspect) were curiously wearing...orange boilersuits/overalls..just like the one's issued to the inmates of Guantánamo...perhaps they were maintenance staff or something...but the point is, were the bodies and body parts found and referred to in you post, from the office or from an aircraft?

Both you and the coroner don't say.

reply to post by mikelee


The whole argument is based off of the camera not showing a plane or there not being any pictures of a plane? That's a complete joke and just shows that there really is NO evidence to support something other than a plane hit the Pentagon.

OH! You see some distorted object outside the explosion? Well then it MUST be the tail end of a drone! Because since our government was so sneaky to pull off the greatest conspiracy in the history of history they left something in a video/photo that they had confiscated and searched through for months before releasing.

Also, I love how when conspiracy people hear a story that backs up their conspiracy it's 100% truth but when someone states the opposite they're either lying or a disinfo agent.

And for this quote later "Whcih brings us back to the question of if there was an airliner and the Gov and so many are tired of these "dam conspiracy theorys" then show us the tapes!", by not showing us tapes it doesn't mean that it was a drone or a missile. It means there's either not tapes that show anything clearly or they simply don't want to make the tapes public. I won't show you a picture of my penis but that doesn't mean it's not there, no matter how much you can say I don't have one I won't make one and show you, I know it's there and I don't need to show you a picture of it to prove it. That's the same thought process the government can have about the tapes (or it could be about existence of photo evidence, I don't have pictures of my genitalia just as they don't have pictures of a plane, or anything else). I know it's not the most professional analogy to get the point across, but hey it works.