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 Finally Fully Exposed.

page: 2
56
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by paradigm619
 


I will have to agree that in relation to the man standing there is no difference in his pants, and upon zooming the "holster" is the front of his suspenders reflecting sunlight.

I do see the black man behind him smiling, and obviously the location of each photo either changed or some kind of weird camera angle is in effect.




posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


i do... it looks like its around 11.. but that depends on where the photographer was standing, and his angle to the sun.. it also depends on what time of day it is when the photo was taken.. it may look like 11 oclock, (reverse the shadow on the debris) but it may show 4 oclock if the sun is setting.. just depends on several factors



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 07:32 PM
link   
While I do believe 9/11 was an inside job...., and the work you did on the trajectory of the "supposed" plane leaves alot of questions (nice work there), I'd have to say, the rest of your finds are less than stellar.

The two pictures of the debris piece are obviously taken at (slightly different times), with different cameras, and from slightly different perspectives.

As for the guy holding the saline drip. Those pictures seem to be taken from different points in time. I'd say much more then a "short amount of time. Due to all the changes, he is even moved on to working on a new patient, I'd say the pictures were taken 20-30 minutes apart, so one would expect there to be many changes in the background, as well as items on the ground, ect.

His gun does not dissapear, I believe he jusr swung it more toward his back/side area, so it can't be seen in that photo. His pants as alreadystated don't change color, they are just a bit darker due to shadow, and possibly a different camera being used.

Again good work on the planes trajectory, and how it appears impossible to get low and level in the CC booth video. But the debris picture comparison, and the makeshift trauma area photo comparison-in my opinion- seem to be legit. I can't find anything fishy about them really.

Keep on diggin though, you can't always hit em out of the park.




posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Don't be put off from posting more of your photo's/evidence Seventh.......as I and others have previously stated 9/11 has all the hallmarks of an inside job

It's just a case of sorting the wheat from the chafe



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh
The Jet is a small Jet used by the U.S.A.F.


Sorry, Gus. Going to have to throw the BS flag on this one.

The USAF doesn't have any aircraft called a "Dragonfire". The A-37 was called a "Dragonfly", but the AF doesn't have A-37s anymore.

The AF does have a T-37 "Tweet" as a trainer. I doubt that dinky little thing would put a dent in the Pentagon. (The T-37s last training sortie was Jun 2009).



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 07:56 PM
link   
My mistake

[edit on 5/9/2009 by Argyll]



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


UGh.... from someone who lived in DC at the time, and as an HOA president had many people in my community at the Pentagon at time of Impact and who assisted afterwards with what you call a "fake trauma station", I am thoroughly disgusted.

What a load of crap you are shoveling... Must have one heckuva an arm.

Oh and btw... It's spelled Calculus...




posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 08:15 PM
link   
You had my support for a little bit but then you got kind of carried away.

Wish this thread was more focused on the object that hit the building...and not the "fake trauma station."

..or the guy with the "mysterious holster."



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Here is one more anomaly to throw in the 9/11 confusion hopper - from an article here:

careandwashingofthebrain.blogspot.com...

It seems there was not only was there an AC130 in addition to the "white elephant" over washington airspace on the morning of 9/11. Two unknown aircraft were over the pentagon during the exact time of the attack.



The planes had the call signs "Bobcat 14" and "Bobcat 17." A partial transcript of air traffic controller communications reveals they were communicating with the control tower at Washington's Reagan National Airport, which is less than a mile from the Pentagon, between at least 9:31 a.m. and 9:40 a.m. on September 11. [1] (The attack on the Pentagon took place at 9:37 a.m. [2]) Radar data has shown that the two aircraft flew "in trail" (in single file, with one directly behind the other) at an altitude of 21,000 feet, and were overhead in the few minutes before the Pentagon was hit. [3]


It seems there is even more a paper, er vapor, trail to tie together the
events of that fateful morning.



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 08:18 PM
link   
so wait a second.. were you claiming to have an expert knowledge in photographic imagery in the OP, or did i misread it?

i would go back to read it but i cant stand arrogance, especially when blended with delusion. bad mix. perfect post? DIFFERENT TROUSERS!? CAPS LOCK!?...............VERY LAME THREAD.


The two images with the man marked "C" were so badly analysed that it almost made me want to somehow transcend this physical realm, align my dimensions with those of this cyber world - the internet - so that i can then exist and live within it, hitch hike along the millions of copper highways and cyber junctions, until i find my way to the place where this waste of time originated (your room i assume), then somehow perform the electronic equivalent of puking in digust...all over you and the place where you most likely spend the majority of your time on this beautiful planet. all with the humble intention of inspiring at least one glistening moment of clarity and introspection in your life. and from there our paths will hopefully never cross again.

...wow sorry that was unexpected.

i did actually appreciate your thread until the aforementioned pciture analasys. infact im sorry i came accross so harsh, you have obviously spent a lot of time and effort composing this, but in doing so youve probably become slightly more delusional than insightful...perhaps.



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 


Dude, that's someone's blog. And it doesn't mention anything about an AC-130 being in the air in that area.



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 09:00 PM
link   
I say it is the same guy. He may have taken his holster off, but the color of his pants may be the same, just shadowed differently. It appears to me that the location of the scene is different, not just the camera location. Something elase I see interesting is the shadow length variations. Look at the soldiers in the background in the second picture and the length of their shadows versus that of the man in question in the first. Holster Man should have a longer shadow. Shouldn't he?



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by DizzyDayDream
 


Wow, you couldn't just refrain from comment? If you thought you sounded harsh, then you simply have to hit the backspace button and erase your useless rant.



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by smarteye
 


Useless comments are made by those who imediately contradict themselves. refraining from comment indeed.

Lets be clear, the intentions of my post were originally to point out how ridiculous his analysis of those two images in part 4 of the OP had been. But my emotions took over and i ripped into the guy, am i not allowed to express myself? hitting backspace seemed pointless, because id already wasted time reading his thread and i wanted to make it clear i wasnt happy about it. Im sorry but when you feel strongly about certain issues such as this pretty#inghugeissue, it makes a mockery of the entire subject as a whole to have such useless evidence presented as the most conclusive so far "FULL EXPOSURE" etc.. thats why i "ranted". and to be fair if i could go back id have ranted again.

[edit on 5-9-2009 by DizzyDayDream]



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by smarteye
 


Anyway, aside from completely missing the point of my post, what have you contributed to this thread?



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by DizzyDayDream
 


Well I found the shadow lengths in the two photos to be interesting. The thread is worthy of discussion in my simple little mind because I have always thought the photos released were suspicious.



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 


I googled the entire text and prisonplanet is the culprit.

forum.prisonplanet.com...



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 



I think "a C-130" is being confused with "AC-130".

Two different aircraft.



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   
The reason these pictures always bothered me is the lack of emotion. Imagine pictures from other catastrophic events. You can see real emotion in a persons face, I don't see appropriate emotion displayed here. Thus I find them suspicious.



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 09:43 PM
link   
Firstly my apologies with the name of the aircraft I called a Dragonfire, like I stated in a few other threads I am having to translate from French/Spanish/Italian here, I believe the term Dragonfire was relating to some battalion or regiment, anyway here is the plane......



Also the pictures, probably was a mistake as several I cannot show, and the ones I can my translations suck. thanks for the spell corrections etc, it`s nice to see guys that have never posted here once - do so to spell check me, still the parts I have made no mistakes on have been given a wide berth, as expected, as told to me by someone a few posts earlier `You cannot hit every ball out of the park`, much appreciated for that thanks very much
.



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join