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: 27
74
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 11:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee


Can you tell me what parts of the aircraft are made of titanium?



Just outer engine casing and fan blades.




posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 12:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: neutronflux

I understand your reasoning behind the post about the flight controls perfectly.

Maybe he Facedyne took a screen shot of my camera shutter speed post lol.


really? because his reasoning is his explanation for how the plane flew steady about 20 feet off the ground at 530mph.

that reasoning being: "the safety controls allowed the plane to fly straight even though they were bad pilots and had no idea what they were doing, under unimaginable stress."

man.. that's comedy.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 12:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

Thank You.

I was actually aware of that, I was hoping jkm1864 would answer as he seems to think the fuselage is made from titanium.




originally posted by: carewemust

This image is of part of the plane fuselage.
vault.fbi.gov...

I guess that eliminates the missile theory.


originally posted by: jkm1864
Airplanes are made with titanium so I'm pretty sure that's just garbage thrown on the ground because there would be way more debris since titanium has a high melting temp.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 12:24 AM
link   

ATTENTION PLEASE



If you can not be polite and post accordingly; follow the Terms and Conditions you all agreed to on joining; simply DO NOT POST.

This is the 911 Forum and Ill Mannered posts are possibly subject to account termination.

You have been advised.

DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS ADVISORY



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 12:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: D8Tee

you know what's funny? i read the entire link. LOLOLOLOL

quit while you're ahead buddy. it's not lookin' good for you.

let me reassert this so that at least you can get an outside perspective: you can't prove your own assertions. you can't even support them with supplemental information. therefore, i no longer take anything you have to say about 9/11 seriously.
No you didn't read the link or you would not have said what you did.


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.



this is a joke right?

ok.. i guess we have to take this a bit slower...

let's boil this down to cold, hard facts. feel free to point out the inaccuracy in any of the below.

1. the blog you just linked me to, to support your entire position, is one that is discussing the security booth footage.

* - it's really interesting to me here that on one side, you want to really make the baseless argument that the pentagon wasn't recording any of the footage from the cameras lining the tower, while on the other side, you're perfectly fine with accepting the security booth footage as being genuine proof of a plane hitting the pentagon. if the security booth footage was never released, but still existed, you would have coupled this in with your belief that nothing was being recorded/the framerate would be too low to tell.

2. you were undoubtedly unable to provide any substantiation to the assertion that the cameras lining the roof of the pentagon were not capturing the moments leading up to the impact (even though, as above, you had absolutely no problem accepting the fact that the security booth footage was being recorded, and are satisfied that it shows a 757 hitting the pentagon).

so.. why is it okay to believe that the security booth footage was being recorded, but not the security cameras on the roof? what tells you that this is the case? (fourth time i'm asking you this question without an answer,
btw)


3. the security footage from the cameras lining the roof of the pentagon would put this matter to rest *without a shadow of a doubt*, as they would be able to triangulate the position of this fast moving object. it doesn't matter what the shutter speed is, nor what the frame rate would be. this is all useless hypothesizing. the multitude of angles that would be available, had the footage from those cameras been recorded, would be able to pinpoint what hit the pentagon with certainty.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 12:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Xtrozero

Thank You.

I was actually aware of that, I was hoping jkm1864 would answer as he seems to think the fuselage is made from titanium.


90% plus of the plane would basically vaporize and you would only have items like gears, turbine wheels etc. I don't think people realize what kind of force we are talking about here.... Take a aluminum can fill it full of gas and ram it into a brick wall at 400 plus MPH... then show me what is left...hehe



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 12:57 AM
link   
a reply to: facedye


1. the blog you just linked me to, to support your entire position, is one that is discussing the security booth footage.

It's a technical discussion of how recordings are captured by the CCTV system, you seemed deficient in your understanding of the subject despite having attested to having first hand experience with digital video, as well as tape and film.


2. you were undoubtedly unable to provide any substantiation to the assertion that the cameras lining the roof of the pentagon were not capturing the moments leading up to the impact
The FOI request indicates all the 'impact events' have been released, don't believe it if you don't want to.


3. the security footage from the cameras lining the roof of the pentagon would put this matter to rest *without a shadow of a doubt*
You think so?



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 03:07 AM
link   
a reply to: facedye

The jet really didn't fly steady? After 9:29, the jet leveled off at 7000 feet, then the jet made changes in altitude between 6800 feet and 8000, and slight course changes. The auto pilot was turned off at least once and turned on to help maintain the flight path. Then at 9:34, flight 77 made the large turn, acquired the pentagon, throttles were applied, and dove in.

A engine may have clipped a tree. A wing may have clipped a small utility pole. Then the damage to the 5 light poles shows the jet was lossing altitude. The jet finally hit the pentagon with I think it's left wing dipped down.

The damage light poles, the FDR, the radar data, coincide with a major of eyewitness accounts.



www.ntsb.gov...
www.journalof911studies.com...
edit on 5-4-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed this and that

edit on 5-4-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed finger fumbles.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 03:10 AM
link   
I thought this was interesting. It's on the lesser theory explosives used at the pentagon.

Lots of facts pointing to why a jet hit the pentagon.

The Pentagon Event:
The Honegger Hypothesis Refuted
by
Victoria Ashley, David Chandler, Jonathan H. Cole, Jim Hoffman, Ken Jenkins, Frank Legge, and John D. Wyndham
April, 2016
www.scientificmethod911.org...


Note: added as after thought.
Along with these two other papers that support a large jet hitting the pentagon and that flight 77's flight recorder data supports the official account.


Foreign Policy Journal
Bringing Closure to the 9/11 Pentagon Debate
www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...

Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon
Frank Legge, (B.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D.) and Warren Stutt, ( B.Sc.(Hons.) Comp. Sci.) January 2011
www.journalof911studies.com...
edit on 5-4-2017 by neutronflux because: Added links to docs



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 03:15 AM
link   
a reply to: facedye

It's been cited that it's more than likely all footage has been released from the pentagon.

Can you cite from a source that there is reasonable cause to think there is more footage to release that wasn't destroyed with the supposed records at the pentagon.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 09:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Salander

Without the full context in which "we were set up to fail" was used, your post is meaningless.


Sorry, I thought you were informed. Apologies.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Oh I am well-informed. Just waiting to see if you would add the rest of the story.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee



It's a technical discussion of how recordings are captured by the CCTV system, you seemed deficient in your understanding of the subject despite having attested to having first hand experience with digital video, as well as tape and film.


you know you keep on saying that I seemed deficient, when you're the one who has no idea how shutter speed affects the images being captured. you've actually displayed this lack of knowledge just a page or two ago lol.

you're also outright implying that all of the pentagon's cameras capturing the event were that of CCTV quality, recording "1 frame per second." I find that really funny. you can't even prove it, and are quite literally just making that up.



You think so?


man, what a weak and useless rebuttal. yes, I think so. in fact, I know that this is so.

you have a really hard time responding to direct questions, don't you? that's unfortunate, because it also doesn't look like you grasp the details of this situation either.



The FOI request indicates all the 'impact events' have been released, don't believe it if you don't want to.


"deny ignorance," right? that's why most of us enjoy this forum board.

by contrast, you would be willfully ignorant to accept the notion that the security booth footage is the only existing footage the pentagon has of the impact, just because they said so. outright ignoring the fact that the entire roof was lined with cameras. "well, they said that's all they have, so that must be all they have" is your position.

ever stop and think that some of that footage is withheld for "matters due to national security," and that's why the roof's cameras weren't even so much as mentioned? nooooo, that would be beyond the federal government right? that CAN'T be the case.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 11:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: D8Tee


by contrast, you would be willfully ignorant to accept the notion that the security booth footage is the only existing footage the pentagon has of the impact, just because they said so. outright ignoring the fact that the entire roof was lined with cameras. "well, they said that's all they have, so that must be all they have" is your position.

ever stop and think that some of that footage is withheld for "matters due to national security," and that's why the roof's cameras weren't even so much as mentioned? nooooo, that would be beyond the federal government right? that CAN'T be the case.



Or, enough of us have worked for the government to be not surprised that there is not any other video. I guess I could turn it around and say, you would be willfully ignorant to believe the idea that the United States Government is this supremely efficient organization that never missteps or misses a beat no matter what happens............US history is full of examples of the Government unprepared/caught with its pants down.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

the scenario I described is more than likely to be the case


the fact that you think 9/11 would require an entire government to be "in on it" is telling in and of itself. what's really hilarious is, you have trouble accepting this as a potential reality, but have no issues accepting the notion that 19 Saudi Arabians were able to confuse, subvert and sabotage every single security measure available to the most powerful nation in the world.

compartmentalization is a popular course of action to take within our government for this very reason. this is precisely why it wouldn't take a grand kind of orchestration that you're trying to describe.

you're tackling two extremes here, and making it seem like this case only has two possibilities:

1. the government is all knowing, synchronized, and orchestrate their actions in unison.

or,

2. the government is a really feeble organization of people, often getting caught with their pants down throughout history.

reality is not this black and white, and you'd be a fool to believe that it is.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: facedye

Well first, they were not all from Saudi Arabia and second, there were not that many security measures that they had to subvert. 1. hijack plane 2. turn transponders to standby (or off) and fly into buildings.

Nor did I say the 'whole government' would have to be in on it, but, there would be far more than you are willing to acknowledge....and it would not just be government, you would have to have insurance company, airline company, and media as well, willingly participating. And yes, #2 is closer to reality.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: facedye


you know you keep on saying that I seemed deficient, when you're the one who has no idea how shutter speed affects the images being captured. you've actually displayed this lack of knowledge just a page or two ago lol.

Oh, I understand just fine.



you're also outright implying that all of the pentagon's cameras capturing the event were that of CCTV quality, recording "1 frame per second." I find that really funny. you can't even prove it, and are quite literally just making that up.
It's my belief that is the most likely case scenario. There is the possibility that 1080p 60fps video exists, I just personally think it's not very likely.


ever stop and think that some of that footage is withheld for "matters due to national security,"
Could be. I cannot disprove that obviously. If you choose to believe that go ahead.

Some people speak as if we were not justified in rejecting a theological doctrine unless we can prove it false. But the burden of proof does not lie upon the rejecter.... If you were told that in a certain planet revolving around Sirius there is a race of donkeys who speak the English language and spend their time in discussing eugenics, you could not disprove the statement, but would it, on that account, have any claim to be believed? Some minds would be prepared to accept it, if it were reiterated often enough, through the potent force of suggestion.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

I'm sorry, but the assertions you're making above are absolutely insane.

1. you want people here, including yourself, to believe that 19 hijackers can subvert literally every security and defense apparatuses we had in 2001, enough to pull off over 3 hijackings successfully without interception on the same day.

you want people here, including yourself, to believe that the hijackers hit national landmarks, as well as the heart of our intelligence, military and national defense complexes WITHOUT interruption or difficulty.

that's complete and utter BS. this point of view has no legitimacy.

2. you think it's legitimate to believe that it only takes 19 hijackers to pull off an operation like 9/11, but would have to include "far more" americans than I'm willing to acknowledge?

so it takes 19 foreign hijackers to pull off 9/11, right? how many americans would it take? 20? 200? 2,000? 20,000?

it really doesn't seem like you thought this through at all.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

your beliefs on this are without merit, substantiation, and realistic content.

they are simply your hopes and suppositions. they do not hold up to scrutiny.

if you really can't answer my rebuttals with facts, or any relative citations, then maybe it's time for you to rethink your point of view to fit in line with *all* of the information we have available.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: facedye

Please provide in a clear statement what hit the pentagon.

I will start with a large jet.

Like 9/11 was the first ever hijackings?

Hi does lack of video discredit the cited sources showing a large jet hit the pentagon, the 100 plus individuals that attest to a jet hitting the pentagon, the numerous teams that give accounts to jet wreckage, flight 77 personal effects, and the dead passengers and crew of flight 77, release of human remains for burial and flight 77 passenger funerals, DNA analysis, flight recorder data, and radar data.

Hint, lake of footage does not discredit the overwhelming evidence a large commercial jet hit the pentagon with it being flight 77.

To think lack of video discredits separated items of evidence is bad logic.

I don't have a photo of you, so you must be made up?




top topics



 
74
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join