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.


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

page: 8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 10:24 AM
reply to post by tdatreefrog

so, with all the unanswered questions that have have come from groups of scientists, airline pilots, building engineers, explosive experts, you can't understand why it doesn't add up? you believe all of these professional people have some sort of agenda of their own, or are too dumb to to understand basic laws of physics, thermodynamics, aeronautics?

Mod edit: Replaced large quote with Reply link.
Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 2/18/2009 by Hal9000]

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 10:40 AM
reply to post by jimmyx

Ok for the last time. I am not saying anything about these things being true or untrue. I SAW THE PLANE CRASH. That is all I have to say. Just letting people with their different theories know. THere are people who saw it happen. I am one of those. Believe it or now I really dont care. I dont post about my experience much because of these very reasons. no one wants to hear it or they call you a liar or working for the government. But trust me it will be the last time I waste my time telling my side of the story.

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 2/18/2009 by Hal9000]

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 10:42 AM

Originally posted by tdatreefrog
I know personally from that day all the real witnesses. I was there all day. Were you there on 9/11? If so you met me. Do a little research , a camera is not a camera phone.

edit: sorry for the remark i didnt realized I said cell camera

Well I guess it is ok, that you mixed up the two. Just seems like a strange thing to mix up, considering you were typing and not talking.

That is a pretty bold statement to say you know "all the real witnesses". That doesn't sound a little implausible to you?

Well just so you know, we've interviewed key witnesses in key locations. Closer than a "mile away" and they all unanimously place the plane on the north side of the Citgo. This is fatal to the official story.

Can you please answer my questions about your location and what you saw exactly?

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 10:51 AM

Originally posted by tdatreefrog
I SAW THE PLANE CRASH. That is all I have to say.

No you didn't and that's not all you HAVE TO say.

-You are anonymous
-Your story has not been verified
-Your story contained an inconsistency
-You said you were a mile away, the alleged impact zone is not visible from a mile away
-Your exact location has not been made known
-Your PoV has not been made known
-The plane appoached on the north side of the Citgo, pulled up, and was seen flying around the south parking lot AFTER the explosion.

...therefore you are NOT a genuine witness to a "plane crash".

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 10:58 AM
reply to post by matrixNIN11

This is another addition to a large body of research that overwhelms the official explanations. All of the naysayers must time and again look for reasons to give some benefit of the doubt to the maintenance of the current American myth -- but they fail. Keep up the good work.

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 11:05 AM
tdatrefrog....look, i wasn't there, nor do i disbelieve what you saw.

what i want is an independent investigation with no politicians, or government people, deciding who gets to bring forward information. i want the people that ARE from the government to answer all the questions put before them. because this seems so hard to understand, i therefore conclude there is a compelling reason NOT to do this, and from that i conclude there is a cover-up...a simple, logical deduction.

this should be treated like a murder trial, of which i have been part of as a juror. and evidence as inconclusive as what has been presented to the american people on 9-11, would be hammered by any second year law student, let alone a seasoned trail attorney. i have noticed in press conference after press conference, when the questions get down the details, it is consistantly pushed aside or simply cut off from discussion.

this is a classic way of avoiding the answers and that's also why i think this is a conspirecy.

[edit on 18-2-2009 by jimmyx]

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 11:40 AM
The helicopter footage is a fake no doubt; the original is just filming a shot over the Pentagon and someone 'shopped the object and explosion into it. The biggest hint that it's fake comes from the fact that the explosion is clearly on a different video layer than the original shot and can be seen moving separately from the building.

The first footage, however, is spot on. Security cameras skip frames (I can't give the exact amount of frames they skip) but they do this because there's usually a lot of them on a network. In order not to lag up the network each one only sends out a certain amount of bit-rate worth of video and let wavelet transforms take care of filling in what happens between.
As for why the explosion is so big so quickly, that's not hard to believe either. The way the gas is stored in airplane wings under pressure would allow it to shoot out rapidly. I can do the fluid mechanics behind it tonight if anyone wants me to, but I'm pretty sure it's legit.

Not meaning to be a debunker, I love this sort of stuff, but my physics mindset won't let it go unexplained.

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 12:13 PM
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

Still waiting for the “absolute proof”.
Just the same as so many threads, this is going all over the place, not getting anywhere. Same discussions again.
Mr. Ranke, I get the impression that you are giving more “weight” to ONE witness that reports a “flyover”, to (how many?) witnesses that saw the airplane, saw it disappear and then an explosion, or saw it crash into the building.
Is this how you conduct an unbiased investigation?

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 12:23 PM

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 12:41 PM

this is the new AGM 158 JASSAM cruise missle testing started in 99 and went into full production 2001 this looks like it make same size hole, and when seen by a regular person would look like an air plane

[edit on 18-2-2009 by smoking man]

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 12:52 PM
Please everyone, tell me and the rest of the readers how the "missile" or "missile that looks like a plane" struck the building skimming into the first floor after doing this over the highway?

It was a flyover/flyaway.

Stop uneccessarily theorizing. This isn't a hobby. This is a war.

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 02:06 PM
come on its not even a good fake,,, the crash explosion and fire seem to be ripped off a video game or something. please,,,,

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 02:29 PM
The Missle was disguised as a fully loaded 757. The theory that anything other than a plane hit the Pentagon is as rediculous as saying those were not planes that hit Towers. You know, people actually saw the Plane - maybe the Government created a mass Halucination?

A Semi truck pulled up and several masked men ran around planting thousands of pounds of burnt plane parts and got out unnoticed. Brilliant planning by the Stupidest President in the History of the USA.
This type of thinking gives the Real Conspiracy's less credibility.

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 02:59 PM
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

WHY did this post get a star?? (shaking head)....

Mr. Craig Ranke....dusting off the gloves, putting them away and examining both sides, for a moment, let me ask you. HAVE you ever visited the Pentagon, and seen it with your own eyes? Second question: DID you visit anytime between September 2001 and September 2002?

Perhaps you've been there. If so, hat's off to you!

Secondly....not to start up an argument, but have you ever had the occasion to fly a Boeing 757?

Because, ya know....I have.

IF you really want to learn, and once and for all understand, then I suggest you buy time in a Simulator somewhere (not sure where you live) but, if you have the money and wherewithall, then you will do it, to see for yourself.

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 03:10 PM
reply to post by weedwhacker

In what way did your post offer anything to refute or otherwise answer Craig's post?? It was just a big appeal to authority logical fallacy, which seems to be a reoccuring theme with your posts on the 9/11 subject.

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 04:40 PM
reply to post by jimmyx

The question would be how he would know what ground effects would do under those conditions and place if he never flew that low at that speed. What he's saying is that he THINKS it would tear up the grass. Maybe it didn't.

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 05:41 PM
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 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.


posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 05:58 PM
reply to post by smoking man

These missiles are about 15 feet long and wouldn't be mistaken for a commercial aircraft. They carry a 1000 pound warhead; replacing that with fuel to produce a fire wouldn't even begin to burn like what has been seen on video.

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 06:05 PM

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 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, 18 2009 @ 06:08 PM
reply to post by pteridine

Allow me to, agian, step in.....I'll have to use my calculator....

Ahem....for a B-757 to fly for roughly the five or six hours for a non-stop from Washington to LA....we use Pounds per fuel usage.

Each engine burns, average, 3,000 lbs/p/, two engines, 6,000 pph times 5.5 hours = 33,000 pounds. PLUS, there is ALWAYS at least 45 minutes of 'reserve' fuel (more, dependingon forecast weather conditions)

So, let's say 45,000 pounds of fuel, at brake release.

Jet-A weighs about 6.7 pounds per gallon....let's do the math....we come up with 6,700 gallons.

Well....nearly 7,000, or 10,000 gallons, still a lot of fuel.

new topics

top topics

<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in