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: 20
3
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 04:28 PM
link   
You seem to be avoiding the explanaiton behind the avatar? I've explained mine - how about sharing yours?




posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
You seem to be avoiding the explanaiton behind the avatar? I've explained mine - how about sharing yours?


Start a thread about it.


You are breaking the rules by hijacking this thread.



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Yes I thought you would avoid the question

As you say, may it go down in the record......



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Yes I thought you would avoid the question
As you say, may it go down in the record......


It's not my avatar.

This is just by far the funniest thing I have seen in this forum yet.


Agent smith uncovering clues!



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
It's not my avatar.


Your right, it's not - so why are you getting involved?
Perhaps you should scuttle along, I'm sure Merc can handle himself without his little helper holding his hand, he's a big boy now.
You could go back to your forum, is the problem fixed yet? It seems to have been suspended...

[edit on 9-2-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Which forum are you talking about?

I belong to many.

Ohhhhhhhh......I know.....

The UNABOMBER forum for covert disinformationalist patsy terrorists!





This is too good.



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Does anyone remember what the topic is? If so please bring it back to us.



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Does anyone remember what the topic is? If so please bring it back to us.


Yes.

This topic is about potentially planted witnesses/evidence at the pentagon in order to perpetuate the myth that the building was hit by hijacked airliner flight 77.

The interesting part of this discussion is that people who question this assertion are even going so far as to say that people who are making this assertion are doing so on behalf of the government as a diversion tactic from the "real" issues on 9/11.

This seems quite absurd because first off.......if you believe that 9/11 was an inside job then it certainly stands to reason that evidence/witnesses would be planted at the pentagon.

Second off......if you believe that 9/11 was an inside job but still believe that flight 77 hit the pentagon...............you either have to accept that a highly skilled pilot that was a government agent agreed to anonymously commit suicide in this covert plot.....or you must believe that a massive 757 was maneuvered acrobatically by remote control with perfect military precision and accuracy at top speed.

This is quite obviously just as ludicrous as the official story.



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 07:10 PM
link   
How does the "no 757" thing come off as disinformation and shift focus away from the more damning facts surrounding the attacks?


How?


The only one I see "shifting focus" are people around here who choose to argue about it and cause division.


I can guarantee you any and every single person who believes a 757 DIDN'T hit the Pentagon still researches, believes in, supports, *AND* FOCUSES IN ON the other "damning facts surrounding the attacks".


Tell me something?


Are people going to finally figure out who planted the explosives in the WTC if they drop the Pentagon issue?

Is some magical information or crucial area going to be divulged or explored because everybody just abandoned the Pentagon?

Every time, someone sees those pics they know something is wrong. Most, like me, were only exposed to the collapsed section photo, and assumed that was caused by a 757. When they see the smaller hole, they are blown away.

Please. Think about what you are even suggesting.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Perhaps the illusion of the cab being moved is the picture? Possible, it's a horizontal mirror/reverse image?

And further, what does the cab being moved have to do with the 9/11 Conspiracy? It almost has no direct impact on the fact (to the contrary or in the support of) an airliner striking the Pentagon.

Irrespective of the facts (or lack thereof) supporting or denying the existence of airliner involvement, we have basic things which fail to make sense, overall:

(1) Seeing people in the windows as the plane travels well in excess of 300 miles per hour. A test: Can you pinpoint a face or helmet of a Nascar driver while you're 50 feet from the track, in the stands? It's quite difficult, I imagine. Someone who's been to Nascar, weigh in please. Now, multiply that assumed "Hard to tell" answer by 2, because Nascar is 180 miles per hour class of racing. That flying object, even in the thicker atmosphere and manuevering that was being performed, could have been traveling well over 300 miles per hour. I really doubt the veracity of anyone who says they saw faces. And further, why would saying that they saw faces be relevant, required or even necessary to state? Wouldn't it be assumed that if you saw 'a passenger airplane', 'passengers' would probably be on board? Why STATE the assumed, obvious, or logically conclusions unless it's to reinforce a human element of this 'terrorist act'. I wonder.

(2) The video footage from the Sheraton, the Gas Station and the IDOT cameras hold all the proof necessary to sway this conversation to one degree or the other. It's quite a shame that we will never see this footage, as our gubmint has likely destroyed the footage and removed the threat of us finding out what really happened. There is no single reason that I, nor anyone here can logically provide that would explain the reluctance of the federal government to release the footage of these cameras. It is ironic, indeed, that the single largest smoking gun ends up being the LACK of evidence rather than the existence of it.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 11:13 AM
link   


You have awarded this thread the Worst Debate in the History of Human Civilisation Award


The title of this thread is "The Mystery of the Moved Taxi". It is quite a specific title. As it is clear to anyone who isn't blind and suffering from severe learning disabilities the taxi has not moved.

Why then is this thread still going? If it were a horse they would have shot it by now.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke


You have awarded this thread the Worst Debate in the History of Human Civilisation Award


The title of this thread is "The Mystery of the Moved Taxi". It is quite a specific title. As it is clear to anyone who isn't blind and suffering from severe learning disabilities the taxi has not moved.

Why then is this thread still going? If it were a horse they would have shot it by now.



The taxi was moved.

The pole was moved.


No negative attacks please. Didn't you see SkeptiCoverlord's message in the other thread?

Stop trolling. If you have nothing of value to add other than negative comments move along.

We do not need people agitating the situation. Thank You.

Good Day, Sir.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mister_Narc
The taxi was moved.

The pole was moved.


Your right you know, I spoke to someone who went the other day and they reckon they've gone - I think you might be onto something.

We've already been over the photo's and seen that they havn't been moved, the only things that seem to imply they have are illusions down to the lenses on the camera and perspective. I have yet to see any proof they have been moved from you or anyone else? Maybe I missed it? Can you recap?

All I've seen proven so far is that eye witness testimonies are innaccurate and inconsistant, which anyone who has any interest in psychology will already know, and that different lenses on cameras can play tricks with what you see.

I have yet to see any proof of them being moved, and even if they had been it could not possibly be any significant distance - so why bother? Especially as they manage to place the broken glass in the same pattern in all the pictures where you can see it.

[edit on 10-2-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 02:06 PM
link   
OMG. look at this. instead of moving a taxi, someone

moved a whole church!



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Out of context irrelevant claims mean nothing.

OMG the same stone wall is visible in ALL examples!

Why didn't the different perspectives make the stone wall disappear like they did in the taxi pics?



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Are you kidding? did you see the high peaked roof of the building on the left dissapear?



Face it.

Your "moving" taxi is an illusion due to perspective compression, that is all.




posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Wrong.

You can still see the ground but the stone wall is gone.

Besides....it's ludicrous to suggest that the car hood, windshield frame, and roof are completely untouched despite a the pole hitting at 400 mph!


Not to mention "Lloyds" timeline and story are utterly ridiculous.

So whether or not taxi was moved..........this story is quite obviously staged.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Are you kidding? did you see the high peaked roof of the building on the left dissapear?



Face it.

Your "moving" taxi is an illusion due to perspective compression, that is all.



Your photographer, clearly says he moved his position...


The following slide show illustrates the effect of different focal length on the perspective. Please note that the lamp has the same size on film for every focal length (so I moved my position according to the focal length as opposed to "zooming").



And using this example, with a 17mm focus, we still couldn't see all that guardrail and all that tree.

This church is several if not hundreds of feet away. Total different examples.

And your neat little example is using one angle. Dead on.

Here we are talking about two different angles. One on the freeway facing the scene and one off the freeway, many yards away.

So when using a 17mm lense here, the stonewall will disappear and the lone guardrail will begin?



As seen here, through the slats of the guardrail:



Stop all this obfuscating trickery please and thank you.

Sorry, try again.




posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mister_Narc

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Are you kidding? did you see the high peaked roof of the building on the left dissapear?



Face it.

Your "moving" taxi is an illusion due to perspective compression, that is all.



Your photographer, clearly says he moved his position...


Oh yes, because all the taxi photo's were taken from the same position then


Try and think...


You saw the images from the overhead satellite, there are no other intersections in that area.
How was it moved? Why is the broken glass in the same positions?

[edit on 10-2-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Your red lines are misleading.

This would be closer to matching the two.







As you can see from the satelite pics the stone wall ends shortly after the point where it is visible in the pictures.

The angle of the picture does not encompass the stone wall.

The pole is the same and the taxi is the same in all the pictures.

The pole was moved though.

From the hood of the car.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join