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.

 

Explain these photos

page: 2
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 12:16 PM
link   
And once again, someone is playing fast and loose with what the fire chief actually said...

As for there not being any bodies in the picture of the exit hole...why release the pics of the bodies for general consumption of the public? We do not need to see the remains of the passengers. Not to mention the Capt is right, what was left by that time were remains.......

In addition, interesting little fact about the original construction of the Pentagon....the bricklayers, in their haste to build the building, did not place mortar in between every layer of brick. At times there would be three or even four layers of brick without mortar between them. Idea was that weight and the other framing of the building would be sturdy enough.......

And yes....those of you that will ask for a reference, go to your local library and read the book "Pentagon"




posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by pai mei
 


This was the first thing that got me questioning 9/11, probably a year or two after it happened. It was in this "rapid-fire" presentation...

www.pentagonstrike.co.uk...



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Incredible. I've spent hundreds of hours reading about 9/11, and yet this is the first time I've seen photos from this angle.


What really gets me is that if any debris made it through that cross-section of the building, then why is there no damage on the structure running perpendicular to the rings? It clearly would have intersected that wall, yet I see no damage. But somehow something popped out on the other side...


This makes no sense at all.


Where is all the wreckage that MUST exist for such a large plane crash? Not in a single photo I have ever seen does there appear to be anything more than a few small scraps.


Where is all the camera footage?


How could such a large plane get that low to the ground with the phenomenon known as "ground effect"?


If the plane hit so low on the facade of the building, where are the trenches that must have been dug by the engines under the wings?


Why does it seem like there are intact windows where the wings would have hit?


Why was no defense system tracking this plane, monitoring it all the way in to the most heavily defended and highly restricted airspace in the world?


How could there not be any automatic anti aircraft missile batteries near the pentagon which would identify unfriendly targets?


Why has there been no effort made to reconstruct the aircraft by the NTSB like they do with ALL other airline crashes?


Why did bush resist an investigation of the event for over 400 days?


How did the government come to its conclusions of who is to blame BEFORE an investigation was made?


Why was the US and British military already in position for an attack on Afghanistan BEFORE 9/11 happened?


I could ask questions forever. But the point is that there is simply so much guilty demeanor and empty holes in the government story, that for me it simply cannot be coincidence.


This was a plan by hijackers alright. Hijackers of our own government.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ianr5741
 



Why was no defense system tracking this plane, monitoring it all the way in to the most heavily defended and highly restricted airspace in the world?


As I understand it, an AA defense system was rendered impractical due to the proximity of civilian runways, and the high frequency of accidental intrusion into the restricted airspace by commercial traffic.

EDIT to add:

But this is certainly something that I took for-granted before 9/11, that there were AA batteries at the Pentagon I mean.



[edit on 4/12/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Captainobvious

This is why you reached out to Reheat @ Jref to help you guys.




Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Huh?

I never did any such thing.

He is clearly incapable.

I highly doubt he is a pilot at all.

He is nothing but an anonymous liar.


Craig, you, Rob, and Aldo are all hell bent on knowing who everyone is. You stayed anonymous for quite a long time. Until you started your Pentacon stuff.

Someone that hides their identity on the internet is in my opinion VERY smart.

It was not you that asked for help, but it was your counterparts Aldo and Dom from CIT. Sorry for accusing you.

Now, Reheat states this:


Attention Cit
I have been really busy this morning in the middle of a move. However, my conscience has been bothering me. You see, Dom and Aldo have both asked me to help them determine the right flight path for NoC to work and I want to, but the math simply won't work. Therefore, I've been scouring my brain trying to determine how I could help. I have finally possibly discovered the answer.


For the entire post click here:

forums.randi.org...


Then Dom went on a rant at the LCF:

Originally Posted by TC329 @ LCF

You (reheat sock puppet) think by attacking estimated flight paths drawn by investigators based off of eyewitness testimony with only landmarks to guide them that you prove the official story true and the eyewitnesses to the plane on the NoC to be liars.

You don't.

If you weren't so drowned in FAUX propaganda you would realize this. You have not worked out every variant nor every projected path that is possible according to the eyewitnesses.

You have "duh-bunked" a drawing but not a damn word of any of the witnesses.


Reheat's reply at Jref:


You see, I tried everything. I didn't just "cherry pick" what the witnesses said, I gave everything a shot and it just didn't work.

It's YOU and your TEAM of investigators, the Internet, and Sir Isaac Newton that have caused disrepute to fall on the heads of YOUR witnesses, not me. YOU and YOUR TEAM did not attempt to verify their testimony as any REAL investigators always do. Instead, your team has spread their story all over the Internet causing disrepute to fall upon them.

That is unless they are DELIBERATE GOVERNMENT PLANTS to destroy your work and your reputation. Can you or any of your investigating team prove these folks are not GOVERNMENT PLANTS? Are you sure? Can you prove it to yourself?

No, Domenick, I haven't proven the "official story" true at all. But, I sure as heck have proven CIT's story WRONG.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


It could have been one of those kits. I think a missile hit the Pentagon, or some Predator drone, don't know if even those things could have done a hole there like that

Here is another picture :




posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


So, Craig....

RIGHT after the so called planted monkey bombs or whatever, were set off and create a massive explosion and "diversion,"the next part of the plan goes into effect.

The building is burning, sections of the building are in danger of collapsing. There are first responders on scene... people are dying, or dead. Smoke is everywhere.....

In the middle of all this...

Secret agents are running to storage closets to get out plane parts? Throwing them all around inside a burning building? Planting as much evidence as possible.

By they way, how heavy was that landing gear? Who carried that?

Really? This is as believable as the hologram theories.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by pai mei
 


Can you please show us that those (if they are in fact) cameras are positioned at the appropriate angle so that you would be able to see the planes approach?

Probably not.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 01:50 PM
link   
So it has a punch hole all the way at ring C. But theres no exit punch hole at ring E????

Original


Original picture with highlighted area. Where's the punch hole there? You can see the concrete still there. Shouldn't there be a gaping hole somewhere there?



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Why does your signature show a dog urinating on a Ron Paul sign? Do you have a problem with sound monetary policy, balanced budget, non-interventionist foreign policy, or the US constitution?


Just asking...



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ianr5741
 


no.

Thanks for asking though.

And lets face it... the only reason why you truthers like him is not for any of the reasons you listed above.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Hey DR,
The big hole in the outer ring is where the building collapsed after the fire. It isn't an entry hole. There are some diagrams on the first page showing that at this particular section of the Pentagon the rings are connected, not individual. The aircraft would've gone underneath the joining area's roof. So the path of the debris would not be visible from above.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Can you please show us that those (if they are in fact) cameras are positioned at the appropriate angle so that you would be able to see the planes approach


Well working in a government building i know that most of the cameras are looking at the parking lot, meaning that the cameras would have picked up the plane since it was at ground level (according to the official story).

Also photos of cameras on the roof of the Pentagon have been posted on here many times.


[edit on 12-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Ultima..

There is not any proof that there were ANY cameras aimed in the direction of the on coming plane.

I have yet to see the proof that there were cameras prior to 911. (i am not saying there weren't)



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
There is not any proof that there were ANY cameras aimed in the direction of the on coming plane.


Maybe you can explain why the FBI along with the videos also removed 2 cameras frmm the gas station across from the Pentagon.

You know you really should try to do a little more research.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by pai mei
 


Most of an aircraft is made to be durable but as light as possible for obvious reasons. The densest part of an aircraft is generally its engines. Though at high velocity these will disintegrate upon impact with solid structure.

If any engine core was to avoid structural framework or massive building components it could well continue travelling through internal partitions and masonry cavity walls with no problem whatsoever.

I am not saying this is what happened, but based on the photographic evidence shown - it would be the most likely explanation.



[edit on 12/4/08 by Myrdyn]



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 04:31 PM
link   
I'll explain it very easily:
The Pentagon had a Stargate in building "E", and then another one near the Exit hole in building "C"!



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


Are we looking at the same photo? I see the opposite of what you do. I think you may be in denial, or you may have other motives. How can one be 100% sure unless they saw it happen?



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 06:22 PM
link   
If by "disintegrate" Myrdyn means "vaporized" as the NIST Report supposedly says, is there someone who's not as lazy with/disinterested in research as I who can pinpoint said mention in said Report? That's the one bit of highly useful information from Zeitgeist I'm holding on to unless given reason otherwise. Has there been a remote control crash demo of such vaporization?

Add: Of course the seats, fabrics and harder metals would have to vaporize as well...


[edit on 12-4-2008 by Lightworth]



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 06:42 PM
link   
just a thought, probably not an answer, but if there was a vent where that hole is, it is possible that (however none of the debris looks charred or burned) if there was a very heavy smoke atmosphere in that room with little or no air with the smoke above ignition temperature, someone or something could have opened the vent/window and allowed in air to an air deprived area creating a backdraft, which is a fire/smoke explosion due to the influx of air, blowing out that wall, but again just a thought, i'm a firefighter so i have seen some pictures that look like that



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join