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.

 

FBI Publishes 9-11 Pentagon Attack Photos on 3-23-17... With Faces Blacked Out

page: 11
73
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Wolfenz

Plane crashes don't leave bodies, they leave pieces. Even a relatively low speed impact leaves few completely intact bodies. A high speed impact like this would leave very small pieces of remains.


Yeah I mentioned Pieces of charred remains.

you are sure about that ? very small bodys parts.

Im not a expert but with a mass of 64 People
58 passengers including the hijackers and 6 crew members
could there be a possibility ??




posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Wolfenz

There's always a possibility. Plane crashes are completely random with things that survive. But as I said in another post, 9 times out of 10 at any crash site when they refer to bodies, they're talking about body parts. Crashes are extremely violent and between the explosion, the fuselage ripping apart around them, and impacting objects around them, bodies tend to not remain intact.



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

If the tapes were not confiscated for the investigation, then you would claim they were ignoring evidence.

Why wouldn't they obtain the tapes for the investigation?

You cannot win with conspiracists that only ask questions, never cite real evidence, only use narratives, use items out of context, never answer questions directed at them, and always moving the goal post.

Want to start discrediting individual by individual the 100 plus eyewitness that give an account of a commercial jet hitting the pentagon?



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: D8Tee

Do you really believe a camera from 2001 recorded at 1 FPS?

Really?

As Pilgrum has pointed out, it's not the camera that does the recording.

Do yourself a favour, read the article, it's not hard to understand.

Explanation

As mentioned, the recording system records the pictures that arrive from the video camera.
However, in order to record for suitably long periods, the system does not record all the 29.97 NTSC frames per second (each composed of two fields): it records a single frame per second.
This is known as time-lapse recording.
But which single frame does it record, among the 30 acquired by the camera every second? That depends on how the system is set up, but undoubtedly whenever the second ends, the corresponding frame is recorded.
Knowing how the recorder is set up is important anyway, because those 29.97 frames per second differ greatly from each other in terms of image content.
What is the likelihood of recording that exact frame in which the aircraft is present in full, if such a frame exists and with all the doubts raised above?
The selection caused by time-lapse recording is such that the aircraft, despite being acquired by the TV camera, might not have been recorded, since it belongs to the frames that would not have been considered by the recorder.
Another aspect that should be ascertained before making any conjecture is whether there was or not a device for deinterlating the input signal ahead of recording and any other circuitry which might have altered the structure of the recorded fields with respect to the ones acquired by the TV camera.

edit on 1-4-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: sageturkey

For the Pentagon in 2001, yeah, you are wrong. Its camera system left a lot to be desired...but since they had their own police force and dozens of security checkpoints in the building...cameras were more of an afterthought.



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Except....they were not the prime suspects. Unless of course you are now going to say that about 5,000 FBI employees were "in on it" .

And the other question, is, why should you have a right to look at the video?



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: bknapple32
a reply to: Wolfenz

Can we get some kind of censor over those pics. Im sorry, but I did not choose to see a dead body of someone burnt alive on 9/11.

I cant even examine the pic without getting sick to my stomach


Seriously ?

yet you have a Game of Throne Avatar ?

Sorry I Apologize but seeing stuff like that , doesn't bother me

probably because the stuff Ive been through servicing my country USMC " Marines "
or raise on farms and experienced Slaughter Houses or perhaps
its experiencing the Lifestyle Hunting and Survival , or Because im Not a Snowflake
and have a Iron Stomach ,or its the cause of was watching a Site called Ogrish.
way too much than i should of ( Suicide Bombers, Daredevil death Fails , Vehicle accidents , BE HEADINGS, Torture in the Middle East , ETC.. )
Hopefully for you , World War III wont come over to American Soil,
or hopefully your Old Enough , Disabled Enough, to avoid the Draft.
and Bypass all those Horrors of War.







edit on 62017SaturdayfAmerica/Chicago490 by Wolfenz because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

You've never been an investigator have you? Yeah, you gather the tapes/files in the hopes they might show something. Investigations 101. In the case of the Pentagon, none of the surrounding cameras showed jack.



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

My logic is perfect. The poster that I responded to, is under the idea that the cameras in the area were 1. pointed at the Pentagon, and 2. elevated enough to show Flight 77...which would mean that the cameras are not pointed at the business. Now, the gas station and hotel security videos are public...and they show the businesses, with a brief view of a fireball.



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 03:30 PM
link   
WTC1 & WTC2 both collapsed due to "jet fuel". WTC7 collasped due to an "office fire". The Pentagon was hit with an "airliner" that would have also contained "jet fuel", yet, how did all those stories (floors, walls, ceilings, furniture, materials, etc...) not burn up, melt, collapse, etc...? Just look at the destruction that was present immediately after the impacts on WTC1 and WTC2. The Pentagon, saturated with "jet fuel" and on fire, multiple sections compromised, yet, it was easily put out—and resulted in hardly a scratch in comparison to the other three. Even the random "office fire" that contained zero "jet fuel" did more damage than an "airliner" directly impacting a building.

Interesting OS.

I don't believe it.
edit on 1-4-2017 by M4ngo because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: M4ngo

WTC 1, 2, and 7 collapsed from severe structural damage and fire. Why is it that folks that believe in the conspiracy theories always forget that......



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

What caused the structural damages and fires?



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Except....they were not the prime suspects. Unless of course you are now going to say that about 5,000 FBI employees were "in on it" .

And the other question, is, why should you have a right to look at the video?



The FBI has a long history of covering up crimes for the powerful.

Why should I have the right to see the video? The Patriot Act and two very expensive wars justified by 9/11. They have compromised our liberties, tax dollars, and lives. There's no good reason to withhold that video considering the sacrifices they've demanded we make.



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 03:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Salander

You've never been an investigator have you? Yeah, you gather the tapes/files in the hopes they might show something. Investigations 101. In the case of the Pentagon, none of the surrounding cameras showed jack.


Oh, do you have links to those videos or are you just speculating?



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 03:59 PM
link   
My problem with a lot of this is—

An airliner containing jet fuel directly impacted the Pentagon and breached a considerable amount of more materials and sections of the building than the airliners that directly impacted WTC1 & WTC2. Did WTC1 & WTC2 contain something that would stop the momentum of force the airliner had upon impact that stopped it from exiting the other side, because the airliners exploded at WTC1 & WTC2. The Pentagon airliner, however, did not explode like the airliners that hit WTC1 & WTC2, hence, it breached pass the second section.

Somehow my brain doesn't allow me to accept this rational.



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: M4ngo

The planes and fire. Building 7 had almost one entire side ripped open by falling debris, and no water to fight the fires because of the collapse of 1 and 2.



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: M4ngo

They did exit out the other side. There are several videos taken of the second impact that clearly show the fireball and debris coming out the building, and several large pieces of debris found on the opposite side from the impact.

Flight 77 did the same thing. It exploded on impact and debris caused the exit holes on the far side.
edit on 4/1/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: M4ngo

Lets see....WTC 1 and 2 were hit by airliners and WTC 7, had its "big brother" WTC 1 collapse into it.....



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: M4ngo

Lets see....WTC 1 and 2 were hit by airliners and WTC 7, had its "big brother" WTC 1 collapse into it.....


WTC1 collapsed into WTC7?



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: M4ngo

Pieces of it did, yes.




top topics



 
73
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join