It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


I.D This.

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 03:09 PM
And that proves what exactly? It's debris from the building.

posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 04:34 PM
Emm. very good...?

Anyway, here are a few more images - it may not be visible or it might have shifted and be that piece you can see:

And just some other interesting ones:

We don't seem to see these pictures circulated much, but they are all available on the DoD server in high-res, dozens more than these.

posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 12:20 AM
Found this on the "unofficial, double TOP SECRET" website

posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 02:26 AM
I don't appreciate what the last two posters have contributed in their last two posts, it is nothing more than childish, it has nothing to do with the subject in this thread. Could a Moderator moderate them please.

posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 02:43 AM
What did you find childish in my post? I haven't edited any of the pictures other than resizing them. One would be forgiven for thinking you don't like these rarely seen images being shown.

posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 02:45 AM
What was childish about the last two posters?

Agent Smith posted some photos to give us more insight.

The only reason why you would be offended by HRs post is if you indeed are the new incarnation of Merc.

Is this from that crazy photo analysis site?

While the still looks like a peice of an airplane, as it crumbles in the other pics it is clearly debris.

posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 02:52 AM
Interesting that he thinks the picture in which it's partly obscured by a whisp of smoke and in darkness is genuine evidence yet the other, clearer pictures without the obstruction and with more light that show it to be part of the building are fake..

posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 04:51 AM
So because AgentSmith's pictures prove that it's not part of a UAV and goes against what you believe it's a childish post?

posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 06:46 AM
Provide the source of your photo Agent Smith.
Was Merc from Scotland? I am.
I was not around when Merc was here, it sounds like he annoyed you a little. Sorry if i annoy you also. I quite believe Merc probally left after he said what he came to say, just as i will when i get around to asking it.
What is more important to me at the moment is pointing at a few things that have not been touched on at all yet.
This evidence of wreckage i show in this post only came to light as i studied closely an image for a matter unrelated to wreckage, the substance of that study will show the building was rigged to fall.

Anyway back to this thread, I.D this.

You provide an grainy image with no source (yet) that does look like normal building materials in the collapse from afar. Magnified we see a big blur, how do we tell if this is fake or not?

The image i provide has a high quality image with a source people say is genuine. It does not look like a piece of building wreckage.

posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 06:49 AM
Excuse me? How are those NOT high quality pictures???
Are you legally blind and took your glasses off or something?

posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 06:55 AM
Topical Ointment

The topic of the thread is "I.D. This", not "Which former ATSer do I remind you of?"

I'm sure AgentSmith can provide a pedigree for the photos he provided.

Not everyone has 20/20 vision.

Let's relax, be nice to each other and discuss the topic.

posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 08:11 AM
The images are from here, just search for "pentagon", there are literally dozens of them and all in high resolution.

Don't forget all images in the public domain are vetted by the Government.
And besides, the original high-res image which started off the whole thread is on the same server and probably originated from there anyway


Oh will you look at that, it's the same source as you got yours from!

Originally posted by The Links
The original picture i have is a little clearer than the original you provide.

How come you didn't bother looking at the others then?

I see what you mean by the way, you've got confused where I resized the image for posting purposes. Obviously the zoom is from the high-res original, not the resized image

[edit on 21-3-2006 by AgentSmith]

posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 08:25 AM
Here are the two images I used:

Is that OK?

posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 08:29 AM
Distrust, But Verify

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Is that OK?

Sure, if you want to believe The Government.

Of course, the original photo was also apparently provided by The Government, so um...

posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 06:06 PM
Agent Smith this image imo has been taken a very short distance and within a few seconds from this image
The source started his series of pictures from quite far away, slowely getting closer to the scene, he never stopped and took shots from the same place for long, he wanted to get as close as he could which he did.
So the change from 1 image to the other in maybe a few steps seconds later is quite significant which makes me wonder.

I had originally thought it was a crop and edit of the original picture, but after looking at it some more i must concede that notion, perhaps some jiggery pokery, perhaps not. Maybe an expert can tell us.

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in