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.

 

Absolute Proof of Missing Frames and Tampered Pentagon Footage.. object and blast on screen at the s

page: 10
74
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 01:39 AM
link   
one of the best posts in this thread imo.

interesting isn't it benoni... i still haven't seen a response to your very valid points... lets see if anyone responds. i'll give it 2 days tops before any gloating


and i agree, i think craig busted the cell-cam comment dude...

"the jig is up the news is out..."





Originally posted by benoni
Weedwhacker...

What is the link between your alleged abilities to fly a "virtual flight" under the Golden Gate Bridge which you seem to believe gives you "the edge", and the topic at hand??We dont care what an ACE pilot you believe yourself to be...it counts for nothing!!

Similarly, how does allegedly living a mile or so from the Pentagon,as you say, and having been there before, also give you the Superior stance here??? Ive never been to Mars but can clearly see, with the evidence at hand, that things are being tampered with re. the photos we are being shown.

Given your self proclaimed credentials, as an authority on all things 757, could you please explain how the plane, which soooo many people on here reckon they saw, made a hole in the wall only 20ft across???
How would you fold the wings back just before impact, to prevent the wings from impacting, because there sure aint any damage attributable to wings....How Weedwhacker??
How would you AS A PILOT achieve this....??
And whilst your at it, how would you, as A PILOT manage the above without TOUCHING the lovely green lawn on the front of the building...??

This thread seems to have a lot of debunkers in action....methinks a nerve has been hit here....


As for the lies re. the cell camera, I wont be giving you the benefit of the doubt, as Craig did....I think your telling fibs...




posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by pteridine
 


pteridine.....finally, I can answer an aviation question about 'ground effect'.

You can google or wiki....but you won't understand the concept of 'ground effect' until you fly an airplane and feel it.

'ground effect' is, simply, a "cushioning" that can happen, as an airplane lands.

An airlplane, low and slow and in full landing config....well, the 'ground effect' mention is the result of the rolling off of the wingtips.....this is the 'cushion' I'm referring to.

High speed, flaps up? No 'ground effect' anymore.....speeds are too fast for what is conidered to be 'ground effect' to be a factor.

Short lesson about airplanes....Lift, Weight, Thrust, Drag....the 'four forces...

I'll shorten this....and add in ENERGY....which is, kinetic energy. Throw a ball up in the air....THAT is kinetic....it will fall, that is gravity. Throw a ball to someone, it will describe an arc....kinetic and gravigty stil at work, regardless.

People can decide to learn....about how to fly, and how physics work....but, not here.

Learn!!!!


weedwacker i think that you are an armchair pilot. You have no idea about planes or ever been in a 757. I can grab a few facts off wiki or google about how much fuel a 757 burns. I would stake my pilots license that there is ground effect at high speeds without flaps. the biggest aircraft i have ever flown is a piper senaca 1 even with 400 hours i find the aircraft some what difficult to handle. you tell me how some cpl student is piloting a 757 with such accuracy.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by tdatreefrog
I hate to burst everyones bubble as I do believe in alot of the information about the 911 conspiracies. I live in Fairfax and I was one of the select few on the highway that witnessed the plane hit the pentagon. I was heading to work and I was only maybe a mile away. Whether there was more to it than that may be but a plane did hit. Believe me or not but I was there and on that stretch of highway heading to work every day at that time for 12 years. I tried like hell to get my cell camera out but it was hitting as I came within view. I was one of the first people on the scene and I was forced to go out to the gas station across the street as soon as I got out of the car.


Would you care to post more detail about what you saw? Do you have any cellphone photos? Was anyone else with you?

A distant family member I have known for 28 years works in Arlington. She was in an SUV with her boss right next to Pentagon City shopping mall on 9/11 when they saw/heard AAL77 fly over very low at high speed with the engines screaming, heard the boom and saw the black smoke from the impact. Even by 2005 when we last met, she was sick of conspiracists telling her and other eyewitnesses that they didn't see what they all saw, so now wants nothing to do with them.

So if you'd go on record - especially with your real ID public - that would be great.

You can U2U me.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


If we are claiming conspiracy and cover-up, then why is it considered TRUTHER NONSENSE, that their would be conspiracy and cover-up to try and plant false evidence and make the discussions look ridiculous?

There are silly discussions about Evolution, does it mean that animals don't evolve, if someone comes out with a non-scientific claim supporting it?


No, it doesn't. But there is definitely a directed, orchestrated campaign to feed the internet with ridiculous theories about 9/11 in order to ghetto-ise and marginalise debate, making all believers that it was an 'inside job' look to the public at large like ignorant and hate-filled fanatics. It's been a very successful project. You can see the results all over this forum and many others.

Any time you see '100% proof' of no plane hit The Pentagon (again) or any other such ridiculous garbage, supported by yet another heavily photoshopped youtube video, they're at work. There's 20 or 30 other easily-disproven lies which still get posted on these forums, and on others - same stuff, year after year.

Why people don't wise up to this by now tells you a lot about general gullibility and willingness to believe uncritically in the outrageous.


If you've ever read George Orwell's '1984' you will remember The Ministry of Truth, whose stated purpose was propagation of the truth, but in practice manufactured and disseminated lies and propaganda. The '9/11 Truth Movement' was intentionally so named, and 95% of what is manufactured and dished out is intentional disinformation taken up by the ignorant and gullible and endlessly recycled. So it will continue.

You have to realise you are dealing with a sophisticated disinfo campaign. The truth has nothing to do with it. No-one has got close to what is in fact being concealed.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 


You said: "I missile can do a lot more damage than an airplane.
Or explosives."

This is not necessarily true, as you can easily deduce. The thing you must consider is the type of damage. The fireball and fire at the Pentagon was the result of thousands of gallons of fuel, not high explosives.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Another thing to consider is that these planes are going so fast so when it hits the skyscrapper it would literally go right through the skyscrapper as it is going to fast it would take a distance to stop it and it would probarly end up sticking out og the other side and then fall to the floor as a piece of debrie.

Also the impact would be greater and would cause the top of the skyscrapper too fall of at a angle you can see this by using a jenga tower see if you hit the jenga tower with your hand the top would fall at an angle due to the impact and it would be shortly after impact it definately would not be like the way it actually fell down.

another thing is the damage at the pentagon does not represent the damage an airliner would do at that speed.

also the hijackers would not be able to manouver the plane that way as many pilots said it would be hard to do that, as it is hard enough manouvering to land a plane with all the checks etc it would be hard, another thing is the lack of the black box and flight recorders surely these should have been found.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by 517.101
the day after 9/11, some hacker from britain hacked into the pentegon, he was looking for evidence of ufos in their database.

Alegedly, he copied, and deleted the survailence camera video from the pentagon database. He then in the following week to follow, removede the plane from the footage of the crash.

You'll never see a plane in it!!!!! He cut it out, forever. Snip / cut.
The government released the only copy anyone has...

He was arrested, and he had only one tape left, because he deleted all but one. A crash with no plane in it. You're right it's the worst tape ever.

You're missing the whole point, the government is really embarrassed about the whole thing. So you're right, there is a ton of evidence that it's been tampered with and stuff.



Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by 517.101
 


517...oh, where to begin to tear you apart!!!

The 'hacker' from Britain did his deed in the 1990's!!!!

Please, look it up, and stop polluting.......


Yes and no weedwhacker... between 1999 and 2002 Gary McKinnon broke into the most secure computer systems in the world from his north London flat.

He even left the following note on one computer:

"US foreign policy is akin to government-sponsored terrorism these days... It was not a mistake that there was a huge security stand-down on September 11 last year... I am SOLO. I will continue to disrupt at the highest levels."




[edit on 19/2/2009 by alienanderson]



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Juksey
 


No, Juksey....really, look at a Physics book!

An airplane is quite fragile, compared to a concrete or steel building!!!!

:sigh: Video games and Hollywood special effects movies have ruined science for good......



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by tdatreefrog
I tried like hell to get my cell camera out but it was hitting as I came within view. I was one of the first people on the scene and I was forced to go out to the gas station across the street as soon as I got out of the car.


Hitting as you came within view, so perhaps you saw a plane fly past, possibly 757, it detours which you dont see then the UAV strikes the pentagon (just theorising), but the statement here is that "hitting as i came within view" just squashes your claim to have seen anything at all as far as im concerned.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by phushion
 


I love it when a person from the UK, who likely has never BBEN to the US, nor has seen the actual Pentagon with his or her eyes, nor been able to see, with those eyes the terrain that allowed an airplane to fly down a major highway (or "motorway") in the area prior to impact....makes a comment.

From the movie with Tom Hanks...."Stupid is as stupid does..."....

Folks....a 'cruise missile' flies a lot faster than a B-757.

LOOK IT UP!!!!

Folks....look....it is a tragedy, and it is this: Suicidal *SNIP* hijacked airplanes intendending to crash and cause collateral damage.

I mean, get a grip on reality!!!! HOW MANY suicide bombers have attacked regions around the World in the last seven years????

THIS is the mindset!!!!

Bush and Company were asleep at the switch (RailRoad term, but we'll talk later).

IF (big IF) the Bush Admin did anything, it was to look the other way.

I think they were simply clowns who were celebrating their "victory" so much that they didn't pay attention.

Seeing this event, the light bulb went off...and they realized how they could 'milk' it to tighten control....using "FEAR" as a tactic.

It was EXACTLY the 'False Flag' event that they might have been planning, but intead a real ACTUAL attack happened (due to their carelessness) and it fell into their laps.

Oh, the Bush "43" Presidency will go down into the History Books, alright....as the MOST corrupt and idiot of them all!!!


Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 2/20/2009 by Hal9000]



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Your assertions are misleading. You are describing flying a plane into the 1st floor of the Pentagon, litterally inches above the Pentalawn as if the Pentagon where on a hill top. In reality, as you should know from your experience in the Pentagon area, the Pentagon is in a valley. As Craig Ranke has shown with photographic evidence(contrary to your statements), the terrain and obsticles in the area surrounding the Pentagon would make it not only very difficult to navigate a 757 to the Pentagon as we are led to believe, but also make it difficult for witnesses from most locations to clearly see the flight path and alleged impact.
Please back up your statements with some sort of evidence/proof so we don't have to take your word for it.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by PplVSNWO
 


Ppl....Not "inches".....an airplane can dive.....come on, you know as well as I how to fly an airplane.

IF YOU ARE intent on suicide, and you have the controls of an airplane, then it is a simple matter to steer, whether by pitch and/or roll, into the target.

This is why, in your two-dimensional world, like in a car, can't understand the concept.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


That dive is not supported by any gov't supplied data. The FDR does not show a dive, the videos discussed in the op do not support a dive, witnesses do not support a dive and the downed light poles do not support a dive. The plane per official story has to be flying low and fast and the physical damage to the Pentagon pre collapse requires the plane be inches above the lawn(actually one of the engines should be hitting the Pentagon 1st floor foundation.
You seem to be wanting us to accept the governments story while at the same time contradicting it's supplied data...



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Hi, inquisitive persons.

Hey ALL ! YOU MUST SEE my post, on page 9,

C-JEAN
posted on 2009/2/18 @ 23:19 = Yesterday from/for/before 2009/2/19, right ?

and see our **expert** "weedwhacker" 's answer, right under it ! !

And, while you're at it, why not give us your thoughts/opinions ??
B-)

EDIT, to add the words: "answer" and "yesterday" and yyyy dates. . .
And EDITs are ALWAYS from the future, the same date or the day after ! ! !

Blue skies.

[edit on 2009/2/19 by C-JEAN]



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by PplVSNWO
 


What I'd really like to do is examine the actual FDR and CVR, put together, in a time frame, as the NTSB does....

Focusing, just for now, on this thread, about the Pentagon, and AAL 77

I'd hate to see this get diverted into a 'discussion' about the Twin Towers....


I happen to have eyes, and can see at any given time, right here, right now....the Pentagon. I saw it on September 12, 2001....I saw it for the months afterward.....I saw them cover it up, during the re-building.

I challenge anyone of these conspiraciy websites to come to Washinton, DC, and look for themselves....doubt many actually have.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by C-JEAN
 


Hang on, C-JEAN....you are now talking to us from the future???

I saw your post, and the time code....errrrrr.....Wow!

Good to know I'm talking to someone from the future. So tell us, what are the wininng lottery numbers....(OOPS....just tell me, ignore the rest....)

EDIT for spelling....but, still I want the future winning lottery numbers.

I'll share....really! I willl,!!!!




EDIT...from the future, stuff you shojld not know......

[edit on 2/19/0909 by weedwhacker]

[edit on 2/19/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by PplVSNWO
 


Here we go again. Saying there´s a conspiracy where we have been lied to, we have been given "false" information. By a group of "perps" that figured out how to fool everyone into thinking the passenger planes had been hijacked and used as missiles to hit their targets. But guess what??
Those same perps have given us the proof that they told a lie!!! Isn´t that something??? So it turns out everything is FALSE, except for the FLIGHT RECORDER INFO. That info. is real, is accurate!!! How about that??? The recorder was found inside the Pentagon right?? But what recorder is that?? Where did it come from?? How did it get there??
AMAZING ISN´T IT???


[edit on 19-2-2009 by rush969]



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 


You said: "I missile can do a lot more damage than an airplane.
Or explosives."

This is not necessarily true, as you can easily deduce. The thing you must consider is the type of damage. The fireball and fire at the Pentagon was the result of thousands of gallons of fuel, not high explosives.


Well, if you are an expert on arson, and you investigated the site at the pentagon, with proper crime scene techniques -- I guess I can take your word for it.
_javascript:icon('
')

>> If not, then you are speculating like the rest of us. Missiles can carry all sorts of ordinance. You have to go by what the WORST they can do -- which would be many orders of magnitude more fire and blast than anything a plane can do. You just aren't familiar with it.

Also, a cruise missile could easily move 10 ft above the ground and avoid larger obstructions, following their corse to a given coordinate -- that's why they took billions to design.

>> This doesn't rule out an actual Plane strike or explosive charges. NOTHING, can be proven, even the official story.

And I think this whole discussion is pointless, if it doesn't bring about a trial of the Bush Crime Family.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 


How about describing to us what the damage to the building would have looked like, had it been hit with a missile loaded with explosives? Could anyone here provide that?
Remember those clips from Iraq that showed the bombs (missiles) hitting bunkers and what not? And how about the pictures of the craters they leave? That´s one missing point at the Pentagon isn´t it?
So, if they used a missile, was it loaded with fuel instead of explosives? Weird!!


[edit on 19-2-2009 by rush969]



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
Well, if you are an expert on arson, and you investigated the site at the pentagon, with proper crime scene techniques -- I guess I can take your word for it.
If not, then you are speculating like the rest of us. Missiles can carry all sorts of ordinance. You have to go by what the WORST they can do -- which would be many orders of magnitude more fire and blast than anything a plane can do. You just aren't familiar with it.

Also, a cruise missile could easily move 10 ft above the ground and avoid larger obstructions, following their corse to a given coordinate -- that's why they took billions to design.

This doesn't rule out an actual Plane strike or explosive charges. NOTHING, can be proven, even the official story.

And I think this whole discussion is pointless, if it doesn't bring about a trial of the Bush Crime Family.

It does not take an arson investigator to know the difference between a hydrocarbon fire and high explosive. Anyone who has worked with energetic materials can easily see the difference. The many orders of magnitude statement is not correct unless you are speaking of nuclear weapons. I am very familiar with the capabilities of US air and surface launched cruise and anti-shipping missiles.
High explosive effects and subsequent fires would provide a significantly different of kind damage than penetration by a large aircraft and fuel fire.
The Pentagon attack was not a high explosive strike. No cruise missile is capable of delivering the incendiary load of a large commercial aircraft nor can it provide the kinetic energy of a large commercial aircraft that would result in the type of damage suffered by the Pentagon. Cruise missiles or wall breachers can't do it; the damage is not consistent with either.
There is no question that the cause of damage was a large fuel-laden aircraft.


Mod edit: Fixed quote to only include relevant text.

[edit on 2/20/2009 by Hal9000]



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join