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: 19
72
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 04:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

It's called 'reasonable doubt.' That is the test. The burden is on you to overcome it as someone attempting to prosecute the official story.


The key word is "reasonable", people doubt just to doubt no matter what evidence is before them. There is no burden here...after 15 plus years the unofficial story is still smoke and mirrors never advancing past the hypothesis stage with zero related facts support it. And here we are nothing new...




Ah...but it's not just the evidence "before us." Concealment of evidence is, in fact, evidence, itself. So is the handling of evidence. The chain of custody of evidence is evidence, too. And then there is the 'quality' of the evidence. You can claim anything the federal government has claimed is solid evidence, AND that all evidence that has not been released, vindicates the federal government and proves their case...but it actually doesn't.

Much evidence, from 9/11, is questionable, and anything concealed has evidentiary value actually IMPLICATING the federal government.

I don't feel bad for having reasonable doubts about the official story.


edit on 2-4-2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 06:28 PM
link   
NIST came to their conclusions based significantly off of computer simulated models and controlled experiments that completely failed to correlate with the actual events that took place within the WTC7 on 9/11. They also relied on help from biased outside sources for information gathering and support.

• Example 1

NIST Materials: Computer Simulations
To test the working hypothesis and to reconstruct the probable collapse sequence for WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7, the Investigation Team conducted numerous computer simulations. The simulations used the information available from the photographic and video evidence, eyewitness accounts, and personal interviews to guide the analyses and verify the hypothesis. The analyses ranged in size and complexity, from components to subsystems to global simulations.
WTC 1 and WTC 2 were analyzed separately. The WTC tower computer simulations included aircraft-impact damage, smoke plumes outside the towers, the growth and spread of fire, the heating and thermal weakening of structural components, and the progression of local structural failures that led to the collapse of the towers.
The WTC 7 computer simulations included the growth and spread of fire, the heating and thermal weakening of structural components, and the progression of local structural failures that led to the collapse of the building. The debris-impact damage from the collapse of WTC 1 was estimated from photographic and video evidence and included in the structural analyses.

wtcdata.nist.gov...

• Example 2

NIST-Generated Photos, Videos and Computer Simulations
This section contains photos, videos, and computer simulations created during NIST’s investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster that support the findings of the Investigation.

wtcdata.nist.gov...

• Example 3

Collected Materials
The collected materials available on this site were accumulated with the assistance of the media, public agencies and individual photographers.  Materials are available in the following categories:

wtcdata.nist.gov...

• Example 4

NIST Materials: Fire Experiments
A number of computer models were applied to the analysis of the WTC fires including (1) the NIST Fire Dynamic Simulator (FDS), a computational model of fire behavior and its effects; (2) the NIST Fire-Structure Interface (FSI), which uses the FDS results to determine boundary conditions for computational finite element models of the temperature behavior of the insulated structural components; and (3) the commercially available ANSYS finite element thermal model. These computer models needed experimental data to guide adaptation/development of the models for the WTC study and to ascertain the accuracy of the model predictions. Both large-scale experimental series and small-scale experiments were conducted. Photos and videos were recorded to document various aspects of these experiments.

wtcdata.nist.gov...

• Example 5
A controlled fire experiment that is in no way representative of what WTC7 looked like, and is in no way representative of the evidence from photographs and videos illustrating what WTC7 ever looked like on 9/11.


www.nist.gov...

• Example 6

NIST Materials: Steel from the World Trade Center Buildings
NIST obtained a large collection of samples from the World Trade Center buildings, the great majority belonging to the towers, WTC 1 and WTC 2. The report, Steel Inventory and Identification (NIST NCSTAR 1-3B), gives a complete list of each sample with a brief description and characteristic photographs. The samples ranged from full exterior column panels to pieces of bolts and bags of glass and other debris fragments. The pieces were classified into categories including: exterior column panel sections (flat wall or corner), “bow-tie” pieces, rectangular built-up box column (not perimeter column), wide flange sections, floor trusses, channels, and miscellaneous (isolated bolts, floor hanger components, other). Materials are available in the following categories:

wtcdata.nist.gov...

• Example 7

NIST Materials: Structural Steel Elements Exposed to Fire
The objective of the structural steel experiments, (see NIST NCSTAR 1-5B: Experiments and Modeling of Structural Steel Elements Exposed to Fire) was to assess the accuracy with which the NIST FDS predicted the thermal environment in a burning compartment and to establish a data set to validate the prediction of the temperature rise of structural steel components.

wtcdata.nist.gov...

• Example 8

NIST Materials: Fire Resistance Tests of Floor Truss Systems
NIST conducted a series of four standard fire resistance tests of the floor systems used in the World Trade Center towers, WTC 1 and WTC 2 (see NIST NCSTAR 1-6B: Fire Resistance Tests of the Floor Truss Systems.) In this series of tests, the effects of three factors were studied: (1) fireproofing thickness, (2) test restraint conditions, and (3) scale of the test.
The four tests were designed and conducted as follows:
Test #1: Full-scale, restrained test condition, ¾ in. thick sprayed fireproofing
Test #2: Full-scale, unrestrained test condition, ¾ in. thick sprayed fireproofing
Test #3: Reduced-scale, restrained conditions, ¾ in. thick sprayed fireproofing
Test #4: Reduced-scale, restrained conditions, ½ in. thick sprayed fireproofing
The tests were conducted by Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (ULI) under contract to NIST. The full-scale tests were conducted at ULI’s fire testing facility in Toronto, Canada, and the reduced-scale tests were conducted at ULI’s Northbrook, Illinois fire testing facility.

wtcdata.nist.gov...



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 06:29 PM
link   
• Example 9

SingleWorkstation
NIST Materials: Experiments of Single Workstation Burning in a Compartment

The objective of the single workstation experiments (see NIST NCSTAR 1-5C: Fire Tests of Single Office Workstations) was to understand how the office workstations may have burned and to provide data for improvements in the FDS combustion algorithm and its inputs needed to approximate the burning of combustibles as complex as those that comprise an office workstation. For input to the FDS modeling, the thermophysical properties of the cubicle materials were determined using a cone calorimeter. Measurements of the heat release rate and the mass loss rate were conducted. Heat flux gauges, thermocouples, the video record provided indicators of the intensity of the fire and its growth pattern. A series of six experiments investigated the burning of individual cubicles and considered the accuracy of the fire model for fully-ventilated conditions in which burning was not limited by the availability of oxygen.

wtcdata.nist.gov...

• Example 10

NIST Materials: Multiple Workstations Tests
The objective of the multiple workstation experiments (see NIST NCSTAR 1-5E:Experiments and Modeling of Multiple Workstations Burning in a Compartment)  was to assess the accuracy with which the FDS predicted the thermal environment in a burning compartment and to establish a data set to test predictions of the heat release rate associated with the burning of office furnishings similar to those found in the WTC towers.

wtcdata.nist.gov...

• Example 11

Collected Materials: Organized Photos and Video Clips
NIST acquired a large amount of visual material as part of its World Trade Center Investigation. A subset of this material, including photographs and video clips, was organized into a searchable database in which each image and video clip was characterized by a set of attributes including: source/owner, time of shot/video, content (including building, face(s), key events such as plane strike, fireballs, collapse), and other details.
The process of organizing and assigning attributes to these images and video clips did not include assigning every possible appropriate attribute to every image and video clip in the database. Therefore, it is possible that some images and video clips in this collection may not be tagged with an attribute that is in fact appropriate for that image or video clip.
In addition, some of the photos and video clips contain information that was embedded by the camera or the photographer. NIST takes no position as to the accuracy of any such information.

wtcdata.nist.gov...

• Example 12

Collected Materials: Original Video from Tapes
NIST acquired from multiple sources as part of its World Trade Center Investigation a large collection of original video tapes. These videos include raw footage shot by individuals, recordings of newscasts from September 11, 2001 and afterward, documentaries, and other coverage.
These videos are presented in their entirety, as they were received by NIST. The original tapes have been converted to MPEG4 files. In some cases, due to the length of the original tapes, a tape may have been broken into multiple files.
A subset of this material (short clips of these original video tapes) was organized into a searchable database in which each clip was characterized by a set of attributes including: source/owner, time of shot/video, content (including building, key events (plane strike, fireballs, collapse), and other details. To view those analyzed video clips, see the collection”Organized Photos and Video Clips."

wtcdata.nist.gov...

NIST came to their assumptions based significantly off of computer simulations and controlled experiments, including experiments conducted by outside contractor(s).



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: M4ngo


NIST came to their assumptions based significantly off of computer simulations and controlled experiments, including experiments conducted by outside contractor(s).

What in the bloody hell did you expect them to do?

It's not like they could rebuild the world trade complex and crash planes into them could they?



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Reasonable doubt?

Then go eyewitness by eyewitness that gives an account of a passenger jet hitting the pentagon and discredit them.


Here is a few starting points if you want to actually debate, engage in the exchange of ideas, and put your facade of fake superiority that is killing the truth movement aside.



911research.wtc7.net...

Anderson, Steve:

I witnessed the jet hit the Pentagon on September 11. From my office on the 19th floor of the USA TODAY building in Arlington, Va., I have a view of Arlington Cemetery, Crystal City, the Pentagon, National Airport and the Potomac River. ... Shortly after watching the second tragedy, I heard jet engines pass our building, which, being so close to the airport is very common. But I thought the airport was closed. I figured it was a plane coming in for landing. A few moments later, as I was looking down at my desk, the plane caught my eye. It didn't register at first. I thought to myself that I couldn't believe the pilot was flying so low. Then it dawned on me what was about to happen. I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball. Then black smoke. Then white smoke.
www.jmu.edu...





Bringing Closure to the 9/11 Pentagon Debate
By John D. Wyndham | Oct 7, 2016 | Essays, Science, US
There are over 62 documented eyewitnesses who saw the plane impact. Fourteen (14) witnesses saw one or more of the light poles struck. Four witnesses saw the right engine/wing hit the generator-trailer, while one witness saw the left engine hit the low concrete wall and break apart. Multiple witnesses traced the passage of the plane as it flew from the Sheraton Hotel (last radar reading) to impact at the Pentagon. There were some initial problems reading the last frame of the FDR data, but the properly decoded FDR data traces the plane’s path all the way from take-off at Dulles Airport to impact at the Pentagon.







edit on 2-4-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed this and that



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: M4ngo

Are you sure about that?




posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 08:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: bobw927
not wide enough and not any wing impressions.

Because you can judge the exact dimensions of the hole from a photograph without any context, such as knowing the size and proportions of the walls that the holes are in? Don't be dense.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 08:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Reasonable doubt?

Then go eyewitness by eyewitness that gives an account of a passenger jet hitting the pentagon and discredit them.





That's not my burden. I have no burden, authority, nor power to cross-examine your witnesses. And I sure don't have to believe them without cross-examination and/or testimony under oath.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 08:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Reasonable doubt?

Then go eyewitness by eyewitness that gives an account of a passenger jet hitting the pentagon and discredit them.





That's not my burden. I have no burden, authority, nor power to cross-examine your witnesses. And I sure don't have to believe them without cross-examination and/or testimony under oath.


Sounds like what a holocaust denier would say.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 08:29 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Reasonable doubt.......
Blah blah blah
Eye roll eye roll

If you have nothing to debate, why are you here. The referenced article, " Bringing Closure to the 9/11 Pentagon Debate " killed your one talking point!



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 08:31 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

You got over sixty eyewitness accounts to discredit, GO!



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 08:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Reasonable doubt?

Then go eyewitness by eyewitness that gives an account of a passenger jet hitting the pentagon and discredit them.





That's not my burden. I have no burden, authority, nor power to cross-examine your witnesses. And I sure don't have to believe them without cross-examination and/or testimony under oath.


Sounds like what a holocaust denier would say.




originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Reasonable doubt.......
Blah blah blah
Eye roll eye roll

If you have nothing to debate, why are you here. The referenced article, " Bringing Closure to the 9/11 Pentagon Debate " killed your one talking point!



Fun! You guys and your worthless ad hominem attacks make it so easy. I just point out your fallacious tactics and that's that. You have nothing. You demand people believe and nothing more. Your investigators don't have to be credible in the slightest. You just insist people believe in what you believe....kind of like extremist Muslim terrorists.

Also, "Bringing Closure to the 9/11 Pentagon Debate" does nothing to satisfy the inherent reasonable doubt in the federal government's official wild conspiracy theory or the broader 9/11 debate.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 08:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MotherMayEye

You got over sixty eyewitness accounts to discredit, GO!



Not my burden. And no where is it written that I must believe witnesses that haven't been cross examined or questioned under oath.

Make me believe them. GO!


*eyeroll*



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 08:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MotherMayEye

You got over sixty eyewitness accounts to discredit, GO!



Not my burden. And no where is it written that I must believe witnesses that haven't been cross examined or questioned under oath.

Make me believe them. GO!


*eyeroll*
Same thing said by holocaust deniers.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 08:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MotherMayEye

You got over sixty eyewitness accounts to discredit, GO!



Not my burden. And no where is it written that I must believe witnesses that haven't been cross examined or questioned under oath.

Make me believe them. GO!


*eyeroll*



What's up one talking point!

You have a scientific person that wrote "Bringing Closure to the 9/11 Pentagon Debate". The author lays out why there is beyond a reasonable doubt a large jet hit the pentagon. The author also points out the disbelief in the large jet strike is hurting the truth movement and his gig as a scientist trying to prove CD at the WTC.

And you have no intelligence reply. No opinion on the author's article or arguments?

Very sad.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 08:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MotherMayEye

You got over sixty eyewitness accounts to discredit, GO!



Not my burden. And no where is it written that I must believe witnesses that haven't been cross examined or questioned under oath.

Make me believe them. GO!


*eyeroll*
Same thing said by holocaust deniers.



Please source one holocaust denier that said the same thing. ONE SOURCE.

You've posted this idiotic statement twice and it truly is the stupidest comment I have ever read on ATS.

As if it is unreasonable to want witnesses cross-examined and questioned under oath before accepting their statements as fact. FFS. You must have some serious problems with the U.S. criminal justice system to act like such a thing is unreasonable.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 08:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MotherMayEye

You got over sixty eyewitness accounts to discredit, GO!



Not my burden. And no where is it written that I must believe witnesses that haven't been cross examined or questioned under oath.

Make me believe them. GO!


*eyeroll*



What's up one talking point!

You have a scientific person that wrote "Bringing Closure to the 9/11 Pentagon Debate". The author lays out why there is beyond a reasonable doubt a large jet hit the pentagon. The author also points out the disbelief in the large jet strike is hurting the truth movement and his gig as a scientist trying to prove CD at the WTC.

And you have no intelligence reply. No opinion on the author's article or arguments?

Very sad.



Newsflash...the Pentagon was not the only building targeted on 9/11 and the article contains no investigation of any other suspects. Please. Get real.

One talking point...reasonable doubt....

It's the ONLY talking point with regard to believing the official story or not. I know you really, really hate that someone has pointed that out and won't let you shift your HUGE burden of proof back on to them.

It's all yours. You get the burden of proof.


ETA: "And you have no intelligence reply."

Oh, the irony.
edit on 2-4-2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 09:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MotherMayEye

You got over sixty eyewitness accounts to discredit, GO!



Not my burden. And no where is it written that I must believe witnesses that haven't been cross examined or questioned under oath.

Make me believe them. GO!


*eyeroll*
Same thing said by holocaust deniers.



I wonder if any prosecutor has ever accused jurors of being "like Holocaust deniers" in an effort to try to persuade them to support their case.

*wicked cackle*

No...I doubt any have. That would be too f*cking stupid, even for the stupidest, sleaziest prosecutor.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 09:10 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

What proof do you have to discredit the eyewitnesses? Why cannot even one of them be believed?

How are the conclusions of "Bringing Closure to the 9/11 Pentagon Debate" wrong?

You are not helping your point by avoiding debate. Makes you look silly?

Thought this was of interest?

Title: It is beyond a reasonable doubt that flight 77 hit the Pentagon
www.debate.org...


By the way, who is winning? Pro or Con?
Lead in by Pro


www.debate.org...
The crash of flight 77 into the Pentagon is irrefutable as long as valid logic is a condition of a doubt being reasonable. To avoid straw manning my opponent, I will make my initial argument brief allowing Con a chance to fully present


edit on 2-4-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed this and that

edit on 2-4-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed copy error



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 09:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MotherMayEye

What proof do you have to discredit the eyewitnesses? Why cannot even one of them be believed?


You just cannot grasp the fact that the burden of proof is on you prosecuting the official story, not me reasonably doubting it. I don't have to prove my reasonable doubts beyond a reasonable doubt.

*facepalm*

Your eyewitnesses have never even been cross-examined under oath with the threat of penalty for perjury. Of course I don't have to accept their statements as truth without any questioning whatsoever.

Please stop being so ridiculous. I don't have believe anything anyone says just because you insist I have no reason not to.


edit on 2-4-2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
72
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join