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.

 

9/11 Pentagon: The Mystery of the Moved Taxi

page: 13
3
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mister_Narc
Ok, Agent Smith whtever you say

You are done. And I am done with you.

No more replies for you from me.

You are too antagonistic for me.

You, like Defcon 5 and Valhall, will be ignored.


Can you ignore me too. Please, Please, Please




posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mister_Narc
The real question is why moderators here are snooping around and checking people's IP's.



that is what they are suposed to do. It helps protect the board from sock puppets with multiple user IDs, that talk to themselves.



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 11:39 PM
link   
I can't believe it, but I actually agree with you Howard on this theory. Why consider a taxi a part of the possible conspiracy theory when it was probably moved less than ten yards at the most?



posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 04:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by Mister_Narc
Ok, Agent Smith whtever you say

You are done. And I am done with you.

No more replies for you from me.

You are too antagonistic for me.

You, like Defcon 5 and Valhall, will be ignored.


Can you ignore me too. Please, Please, Please




HowardRoark! i think the mods have niped it in the bud, it doesn't need you to continue any disagreement, why would you do that? stop brown-nosing, its the sarcastic dribble like that that annoys everybody, give us a break will you, you should get a warning for that.



posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 04:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by iamian
you should get a warning for that.


Have you ever seen Howard get a warn? In fact have you seen any of the de-bunkers get warned? How many did Rick get? I wasn't offended by any of his posts, were you? In fact you go to a 'real' research site and you will find his style to be the norm. But ATS is fast becoming the Disney conspiricy site.
I don't blaim him for the multiple log ins, he was being harrased continualy.
And people wonder why he got an attitude


The de-bunkers have once again de-railed what could have been a good thread.

[edit on 22/1/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 04:42 AM
link   
I agree with the derailing point, but why come in after its been sorted out? it just continues the crap.



posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Have you ever seen Howard get a warn?


Yes.

For the record, he has three warns in the warning database. They are for these posts:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

CatHerder, arguably our "most visible debunker" racked up enough warnings at one point to receive a posting ban, and 30-day account ban. He has not elected to return after the account ban. Here are some select examples:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
There were other more abusive posts that were simply removed.



posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by iamian
you should get a warning for that.


Have you ever seen Howard get a warn? In fact have you seen any of the de-bunkers get warned? How many did Rick get? I wasn't offended by any of his posts, were you? In fact you go to a 'real' research site and you will find his style to be the norm.


What like conspiracy eBay? Buy your wares here?
I find people like him rather disturbing, when they say they have all the answers..... "On my next DVD!! Roll up Roll up! Get your truths here. I love humanity and I want to help - for a price!"
I know most people would rather I peed off, but I actually spend countless hours of free time, which also gets me harassed by the missus, on here. I never charge anything for anything. I have put up podcasts of lectures I attended with Buzz Aldrin and Charlie Duke. I conducted an interview with Nick Pope and podcasted that. All for nothing at great personal expense both financially and in time for me.
I also really try hard to follow the rules of the establishment, after all it's not my gaff and it certainly is not Rick's or anyone elses to use as a platform from which to launch their wares.
Wecomeinpeace, labtop, bsbray, killtown, howardroark, myself and virtually all the other members here, and not forgetting the admin and staff team, all devote countless hours freely because we all do want the truth and we want everyone to be aware of it. Even if some of us rarely see eye to eye and take up what looks like opposite sides to the room, we all have honourable intentions. Or at least I hope so anyway.

But if Rick's ways are the sort of behaviour you see on a 'real' research site as you put it, then you can keep it.

[edit on 22-1-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Can you ignore me too. Please, Please, Please



No. I am not going to ignore you. You haven't warranted such an action. Although you seem to be bordering on that line now with your request. You seem to be the only one offering any sort of a real challenge on this. But you still haven't proved conclusively that it wasn't moved. It and the pole(and pieces) were moved, I have demonstrated this. Because others have demonstrated this.



posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Speaking of distractions. I really wish this post was not made a separate thread. I do wish I was at least asked if it was OK. There is a lot of other evidence on the 757 thread. And now it's kind if taken a sideline. I hope we can all return to the root of the argument, which stems from that thread.



posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 01:02 PM
link   
I think we'll stick to the topicc of the thread if it's all the same. You keep saying it has been demonstrated that the taxi was moved - how? where? I have seen nothing of the sort.
It has been clearly shown that it has not been moved and saying it has also begs the question - why?

I clearly showed the same broken glass in the same positions that you can see in the Loose change still, the newspaper photo and the one with the White car in it.
You're saying they fluffed up some major details (which basically have perspective to blame) and yet carefully placed broken glass in the same relative positions for all shots?

Get real man



[edit on 22-1-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark




(Sorry about the wavy quality of the lines, but I was doing those freehand on GIMP).
Note the purple line in the bottom left corner of the photo. That is the perspective of this photo:







See that bush that the purple line starts and runs through? On the left side of the sign post(from the ground photo perspective)? You see that bush is not supposed to be there. There is only a bush on the right side. And actually Howard, these photos help show us that the Taxi moved. Thank you.



posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 04:32 PM
link   
Why are you avoiding the statements regarding the glass?
I'm really interested in hearing your opinion why they would mess up so many big details, yet arrange the broken glass so carefully for the benefit of all these fake photos?
Don't avoid the question.

Regarding the satellite photo, it was taken over a year later - The bush will have grown and/or they may have planted more. It does happen you know..,,

[edit on 22-1-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mister_Narc

See that bush that the purple line starts and runs through? On the left side of the sign post(from the ground photo perspective)? You see that bush is not supposed to be there. There is only a bush on the right side. And actually Howard, these photos help show us that the Taxi moved. Thank you.



I'm not quite sure what you are talking about.

Are you talking about this bush?




If you look at the overhead shot, and follow the shadows of the support structure for the overhead sign from the catwalk/bridge to the ground, the bush is in the same place in both photos.



You may be confused by the oblique angle of the upright objects in that photo since the camera was not directly overhead when that picture was taken.

Look at the light pole in the lower left corner of the image I posted to see what I am talking about.



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 12:25 AM
link   
Yeah...like I was saying...that bush wasn't there on 9/11. That's it. No big deal.

But thanks for that link it was a great help regardless. Great tool.



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 12:34 AM
link   
WTF are you talking about???



The same bush is in both pictures in the same spot.

Look at the shadow from the upright portion of the sign structure. They go from the horizontal piece straight into the ground at the bush.


You just can't admit that you are wrong can you?



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 01:24 AM
link   
No. You are not looking at the right bush.

Don't talk to me like I'm stupid.

I know I what I am looking at.

Are you going to make me circle it and school you once again?



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 01:29 AM
link   
You want to call it the same bush. But it's not.

It's new bush.

Regardless. It was moved. And your little tool is going to help me show it to you.

Tomorrow.

Toodles



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 04:51 AM
link   
Even you were right, then so what? The pictures were taken over a year apart. Plants grow, get planted, etc.. You know.. the usual plant stuff.
The world doesn't stop so Merc can prove his point you know..


But it is in the same place, so it's not an issue. As Howard said - follow the shadows the picture is not taken from directly overhead like you assume. The shadow ends wherever the supports go into the ground yes? Agree?
The shadow ends on the correct side of the bush.. I would say it's easy, but I admit I missed it the first time round.

This quick diagram (sorry it's rough - hurry) may help you visualise it:



Besides, there is an easy way to show you that the intersection Howard showed you is the one in the photo.

If you check out the site Howard got it from here:

terraserver-usa.com...

Then zoom out a bit:

terraserver-usa.com...



Now look at photo in question again:



You can clearly see it is the only intersection in the area and more importantly the only one where you get a view of the damaged area of the Pentagon at that angle.
So unless you wish to go down the route that the background is photoshopped or something...

Yes it is that intersection, and yes the bush is in the right place..


I see you are still artfully dodging around the subject of the broken glass being positioned the same in all the pictures, I wonder why you may be doing this?


[edit on 23-1-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 10:31 AM
link   
This issue of the bush is just clever distraction by Merc to cover the fact that I have shown that by comparing how the objects line up in the photos to the aerial shot, you can see how the taxi was not moved.

Frankly, I don’t see much point in debating this any more.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join