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.

 

Pentagon Whistle Blower?

page: 3
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


Con`d.

Ran out of space, anyways Dave the data the FAA had and the Seismic data both had the correct times, so the two incidents that showed the readings at 14 and 17 seconds earlier than impacts were both readings of something else.




posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   
There is something that bothers me about the eyewitness that said he saw a plane hit the building Father something I think.
There is no doubt in my mind that if he was only 20 feet from the object he calls a plane ,it could easily have been a big missile like Rumfels said it was. It just had wings. Wings help with pin point accuracy. As in hitting a renovation area of a building.
I don't guess clergy get out to the airforce bases much or he would be called a chaplin and know that there are all kinds of things that fly that resemble planes.
You all keep up the good work!
You disinfo folks to. The more you write the more the people can read.

[edit on 6-8-2009 by Donny 4 million]



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vinciguerra

Also You can not show us a 757 size hole in the pentagon. Swampfox could

I'd suggest that if anything, the damage at the Pentagon is more realistic than that at the WTC.





?? WHAT!?!

OK I shall RE POST THE PHOTOS to try and get my point across.

The following is a fair approximation of the size of the plane and where it was alleged to of hit the pentagon.




Then two more photos.






As you can see the impact was alleged to of been around the first floor and for the plane to of been flying that low it would of had to of dragged its engines across the lawn tearing up dirt.

Can you show me where in the photos I provided the engines dragged across the dirt?

Can you show me a hole that would realistically fit the Boeing?

NO YOU CAN'T. If you could you debunkers would of done so already!

Its been 8 years and in 8 years you have failed to explain several inconsistencies of the pentagon. You guys just spout of asinine Bull and disinformation, its ridiculous!

SHOW me where the lawn damage is! Show me a realistic 757 sized hole!






[edit on 6-8-2009 by titorite]



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh

Dave it`s not that technical, notice this...


The problem isn't that it's technical, the problem is that the sources he's listing aren't jiving with what he claims they say. Here is the actual Columbia University seismic graph he's using to base his report on-

Columbia University's seismic graph


He's claiming that a seismic activity was recorded before each impact, but looking at the graph there are only four spikes- two identified as the plane impacts and two identified as the collapse of the buildings. Either he's saying there's really another pair of seismic spikes on the graph before the impact spikes somewhere, which I don't see, or he's actually claiming the impact spikes were misidentified by Columbia and are really basement explosions occurring before the impacts, with the impacts not showing on their instruments at all. I'm presuming it's the latter becuase it looks like he's holding the impact times listed by the 9/11 commission report to be gospel, and becuase there's no seismic spike associated at that time, but rather, 14/17 seconds earlier, he's declaring the plane impacts didn't register at all and the earlier spikes were unrelated explosions occurring before the impacts.

So, is he saying there are additional seismic spikes on the graph that I don't see, or is he saying Columbia University is actually wrong and the seismic spikes are really basement explosions? Both are problematic, so like I said, I am asking if I understood this correctly, before I say anythign more.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



Here we go Dave, hopefully this will make it understandable..

The 1st picture just shows the alleged impact times.



The 2nd shows exactly the same times but also the times of actual impact from NIST using data from FAA, now afaik FAA also use the UTC to set their times with, if so it really can only mean one thing, the respective data from the seismographs is not the jets impacting, but explosions 14 and 17 seconds respectively beforehand.



Please tell me you have got it now lol
.

EDIT: P.S.

P.S. The entries by NIST are the actual Jet impact times and nothing to do with seismic data, also notice here if one of the time clocks was out both times of difference would be identical ie both 14 or 17 seconds.


[edit on 30/07/2009 by Seventh]



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by titorite
The hole should be somewhere around that Big red circle but there is none.

Heck the explosion looks as though it was completely from the inside out, I mean Look at that lawn. No divots from where the plane allegedly hit the ground and bounced back up, No scattered plane parts, Nothing to suggest a plane crash.

We have alot to suggest an internal explosion but not alot to suggest that the explosion was cause by a plane crash.

Kinda questionable if you ask me.


First off, this is a bizarre photo to be demanding a crystal clear view from, since you can see right in the picture there's clouds of smoke coming from the Pentagon as well as a stream of water from that fire truck. We can't really see anythign of the Pentagon behind this obstruction *at all*, let alone any structural damage.

Second, you have not noted when this photo was taken. The very first thing they did on day one was to pick up all the pieces of wreckage as evidence, and the link I provided alreedy shows the wreckage found on the lawn becuase it was taken almost immediately after the impact. The lack of visible wreckage in your photo (plus there being a fire truck already having arrived) suggests it was taken some time afterwards. It is not a good basis to use this to claim "no wreckage".

Third, your photo does not refute the multitude of eyewitnesses who specifically saw the aircraft hit the Pentagon. The building isn't out in the middle of nowhere- there are buildings and houses all around it, PLUS there's a major highway right next to it. There were many witnesses to what happened, which, again, were listed in the link I provided.

I do thank you for your photo, but at best, it doesn't disprove anything I said, and at worst, it only proves my arguments, rather than yours.

Holy mumbo jumbo Daveo
The building is still on fire no crime scene tape. If there was wreckage of a plane it would be left to be photographed in place or just out of the emeggency crews way. As is the case in criminal acts or accidents.
I can clearly see no hole or lawn damage or wreckage.
Do you have photos that do show all these things . I would sure like to see em. Any way who picked that plane up even before the first responders got there? The janitors?



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh
The 2nd shows exactly the same times but also the times of actual impact from NIST using data from FAA, now afaik FAA also use the UTC to set their times with, if so it really can only mean one thing, the respective data from the seismographs is not the jets impacting, but explosions 14 and 17 seconds respectively beforehand.


Ah, so I do understand it correctly- becuase NIST/FAA list it as one time, which has no seismic spike on the Columbia graph, he's concluding that the impacts did not show up on Columbia's instruments, but becuase there are actually spikes 14/17 seconds prior to that, he's concluding those are unexplained explosions.

First, I don't see where he refutes Columbia's identification that the seismic spike sin question were in fact the plane impacts. It is a de facto statement that they do believe they can and did pick up the plane impacts on their instruments. Second, he doesn't address the possibility that the FAA/NIST simply reported the precise impact times wrong. Yes, they do use UTC but the UTC didn't report to NIST/FEMA the times of the plane impacts. Someone reported to them when the planes impacted and then they used the UTC to record when they got word of the impact (in this case, 17 and 17 seconds after the fact).

Then there's the biggee- if there really was such a massive explosion...and I can't say that there was or wasn't. you can see right on the charts how massive it was. The explosion wouldn't have just been felt by william Rodriguez, et. Al,, it would have been felt my *everyone*- police, tourists, news personnel, the three card monty grifters, everyone. Remember, After the first plane had hit everyone's eyes were glued to the WTC complex so I can't say it would have excaped everyone's attention.

Why do you believe it *couldn't* have been a simple 14/17 second mistake?



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
Do you have photos that do show all these things . I would sure like to see em. Any way who picked that plane up even before the first responders got there? The janitors?


I'm glad you asked that, since I have a link to ANOTHER conspiracy web page that shows people retrieving the wreckage from the lawn of the Pentagon. It's just that this site is claiming these are gov't spooks retrieving the wreckage so that noone can analyse it.

Retrieving the wreckage

So, either there WAS wreckage and it was retrieved by gov't spooks to conceal what really hit the Pentagon...meanign that you're wrong...or there was no wreckage to pick up and the people putting up this website are wrong. Either way, someone's accusations are wrong.

Would you mind explaining that one to me?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join