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.


Pentagon Finally Fully Exposed.

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 09:59 PM
First as to the photos of the wreckage and the triage are obviously from the same point in time (give a few minutes either way). Have you heard of something we like to do, it's called "walking"? What, you actually expect someone with a camera on one of the most historical days and moments in history to stand in one spot and take pictures? The shadows on the wreckage matches perfectly if you were to walk to the right a couple of feet. As for the triage, yes it's the same guy. Just look at his bad haircut for gods sake. Now, if you have watched National Security Alert from they have alot of very good and hardcore evidence to show that yes, it was an inside job at the Pentagon. Although I will have to argue 2 points, and one of them was brought up by the OP here. A witness on the opposite side of the building ran outside on the recieving dock and "saw a jet liner flying away" right after the explosion. Numerous witnesses saw the jet liner, or at least "a jet liner", not fighter jet of any kind. And the still photos shown here and in the National Security Alert video does show a stabalizer of a let at ground level, yet does not show it hiting the building. As for "planted" evidence or "staged" scenes, like the downed light poles and the OPs suggestion of the "staged" triage. Do you realize that everyone in the building ran out for saftey reasons? Their were some helping those injured, yet it was staged" The biggest conspiracy in history was the Revolutionary War and that took thousands of citizens to help out and keep quite about it. Yet normal, every day workers helped several people injured and never had a clue that it was just red colored sugar water? Stick to the facts and stop making them what you want them to be and people will take it more seriously. Evidence leads YOU, not the other way around.

posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 10:15 PM
Uhm, I'm sure too that was no airliner to hit the pentagon, but the photo comparison of the triage outside makes me wonder how someone so smart could overlook something so simple, like different cameras with different color quality and different time of day. Just look at the grass!

posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 10:24 PM
reply to post by smarteye

Lack of emotion? Is that what it comes down to? because for me the following seem to be entirely explainable:

Originally posted by Seventh

Would it not have been better putting the injured in ambulances?, not when you have to get the public sympathy backing, a trauma centre with more flaws than Bush science, see how many you can spot, I gave you one.....

1st sentance: not if the wounds need immediate medical attention. and many other possible factors, all logically explaining the lack of an ambulance.
2nd sentance (well it starts with a commer, very articulate as warned) Nothing in regard to the actual photographic detail here, but the speculative rhetoric remains consistant, all entirely baseless of course. And as it happens the 4th part of the OP has been edited twice...i wonder why. is it because perhaps as later pointed out to him:

-The trousers were the same colour, the pictures simply didnt capture the light in the exact same way.

-And yes, he is the same man....its just obvious, come on.

-No its not a holster, its a tie, a tie clearly visivble in both pics.

-within the 1st few replies to the OP its pointed out that he is wearing the suspenders in both pics. look for the inverted V, not a holster. as for the strap round his waist...clearly a crease in his shirt.

-both the time of the pics and the angles are different, so obviously our perception of where certain landmarks and objetcs are within each pic wil change. The OPoster hanst fully explained what the purpose of the rest of the letters on the above picutres are supposed to highlight, but to me it simply looks like a desperate attempt to clutch at the straws of a conspiracy theory. I really cant be bothered to watse my time analysing the rest of this pic. Do it yourselves with the following in mind:

camera angle
time of day (shadows)
photographic illusions such as foreshortening.
consider the position of the camera angle of the pic your not currently looking at then imagine walking to that spot from the one you currently are looking at and taking the above into condieration does it seem likely that the image before you will appear as the other picture does? then you'll see this isnt the trauma centre for sympathy employing bush science to make you more patriotic or whatever, as you may have been lead to beleive by the OP.

posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 10:41 PM
reply to post by DizzyDayDream

Ah Dizzy, you made 4 posts the day you joined in other forums, wait for two weeks then come here with vast knowledge of photography and triage situations.


EDIT: Correction.

Oh my mistake you made your four posts over 3 months after you joined, why is that exactly?.

[edit on 5-9-2009 by Seventh]

posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 10:45 PM
reply to post by DizzyDayDream

Are you mental, I point out that your rudeness to the op is un-called for and now your on a personal mission to be a first class jerk to me. You never post until now and all you do is treat everyone you have responded to like an arsehole. And yes I stand by my belief that there is a lack of emotion in the pictures. Is it conclusive evidence? No, this is a discussion board and I was discussing the issue.

Lately on this site we have had newbies sign up and act the way you do and lately this site has gotten knocked off track. Just stop being a dick.

posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 10:57 PM
reply to post by DizzyDayDream

If you notice in the first pic the tie has a back strap. Does it not?

posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 11:11 PM
this is a reply to both Seventh and smarteye.

firstly, smarteye. Im not mental no, and of course im not on mission to be a jerk to you. You just missed the point of my post. but maybe that was my fault, as i shouldve made it more clear at the time...instead of like you said being rude to Seventh, which i regret, because hes obviously done a lot of hard work. but even though i might have been rude at first, i did end the post in a less confrontational tone.

I just find it difficult to accept that certain peices of "evidence" which are clearly baseless when properly anaylsed are contained under the heading "Pentagon Finally Fully Exposed" as if this is groudbreaking stuff.
Perhaps the 1st parts of sevenths OP did contain some well worked out evidence and analysis, but he kind of shot himself in the foot by posting that dreadful part 4. i mean no disrespect but you just cant be sloppy like that when it comes to issues such as this where the implications of what were discussing could potetially change the course of history. sorry these events have changed the course of history, but as most of us here on ATS know, thats not the full story. there are many inconsistencies and missing chapters to it, and people like seventh are working to find the missing peices of this puzzle, which is admirable only until people start making up peices to fit into their idea of what the puzzle should look like.

And seventh with all due respect why is it neccesary to question how when and why i post here on ats?

Edit to add: One more thing Seventh, when did i ever claim or even imply i have "vast knowledge of photography and triage situations". You dont need either of those to analyse what i have in previous posts anyway. I use two tools, logic and imagination. you've certainly got a good imagination, but try using logic a bit more, just a suggestion. then well get along fine, perhaps even work together on these issues.

[edit on 5-9-2009 by DizzyDayDream]

posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 11:18 PM

Originally posted by Seventh

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

Really. I didn't know the USAF flew S-3 Viking carrier-based submarine aircraft.

compared to:

"Dragonfire" is the tactical callsign for a now-defunct Navy carrier-based anti-submarine squadron, VS-29.

The NAVY squadron was disestablished in 2004.

The USAF has *never* flown the S-3 Viking aircraft in any manner. NASA has, as a test platform, but only one aircraft.

Where do you come up with this stuff? Its entertaining, that's for sure!

[edit on 5-9-2009 by trebor451]

posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 11:26 PM
In these pictures I removed blocks of color and replaced them so you could see the silhouette of the plane, and compare the background in the 2 frames. The black and yellow 'warning' pattern replaced the light grey clouds/overcast where the sky meets the horizon. The white area is where I deleted the shadows. The red is the silhouette of the plane.

That looks it could be one of many aircraft, but not a Boeing 757. I Say excellent work on the first 3 "OP's". #4 does not get my endorsement either, however. Great work, much better and more detailed than most.

[edit on 5-9-2009 by jprophet420]

posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 12:13 AM
reply to post by jprophet420

JP that is awesome, mucho kudos for that, and yep the photos were a huge mistake, late in the day and in a rush, i`m only human -`He who makes no mistakes will nothing ever make`

And again well done there awesome work

posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 12:19 AM
reply to post by trebor451

If it is defunct they wont miss it much will they, noticed you missed the very accurate flight in stuff, no surprise there really, picking the correct Jet for what is clearly not a 757 here is immaterial, the task in hand is proving it was not a 757, and the flight in as told by the OS is impossible, been there, done that.

[edit on 6-9-2009 by Seventh]

posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 12:36 AM
reply to post by Seventh

Thats not a gun holster your seeing things there isnt a gun holster in the world that straps a pistol like that.Its a fold in his shirt caused by suspenders. And these pictures are obviously taken at two diffrent times or people in the background can switch races from black to white at will.

posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 12:49 AM

Originally posted by Seventh
...... picking the correct Jet for what is clearly not a 757 here is immaterial

It's not "immaterial". A freakin' S3 isn't going to do that much damage to a building. It's a small jet.

posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 12:54 AM
Just my 2 cents worth...

The calculations in your first bit were well above my knowledge level. While I appreciate the conclusion you are trying to make, I certainly don't have the skills to evaluate their truth. If what you say is true, I applaud your efforts!

That being said, I did not see any so called discrepencies in the crash site photos. For example, as has been pointed out, the alleged disappearing holster is actually the gentleman's suspenders and tie. I do have fairly good knowledge of holsters - conceal carry and open carry - and there is no smoking gun on his right side.

Furthermore, when photographing an event of this magnitude, there SHOULD be changes in the photos - as these were taken at different times. The medical, fire and police crews (and other individuals) are continually assessing and treating the injured and deceased, moving equipment and vehicles. They are dealing with an ongoing changing of priorities and what is called - surveying the scene or triaging. One would NOT expect to have all the same bodies in the same places, nor equipment. I did not see anything to indicate the sex of an individual in the photo had changed but, perhaps, the situation necessitated the stretcher to be moved under a different person with more serious injuries. Or, perhaps, they had finished treating/moving the person you saw in one photo and had moved on to the next victim.

Anyway... I'm confident you have taken my point. I tried to explain it in a diplomatic and constructive manner. Sometimes, the simplest terms are the most effective means of communication. I do find it disappointing that some members of ATS are not a bit more respectful in expressing their disapproval. Regardless of one's take on your post, I hope to see a little more self-control by those who respond.

posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 01:01 AM
reply to post by trebor451

Your right he chose the aircraft because he though it had a similar tail section.But apparently isn't aware the aircraft is a quarter the size.The wing pylons are top mounted its max speed is at least 100 mph less.This thing flying in would have been obvious it would have shown on video alot longer. Its about the size of a Cessna and if this flew over people they would have known it no doubt it sounds like a vacuum cleaner thus its nick name Hoover.

I commend the effort the op spent but i noticed he has a problem with perspective.From that distance the viking wouldn't have been seen its to small.

posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 03:39 AM
Hi there I hope this thread manages to stay the course that was set out in the original OP and doesn't start to drift off too much on the photoshopped side of things, similar to Packinmomma's post I would like to see more of a focus on the irrefutable, if the mathematics are correct in the original post then this should be sent to all of your elected government representatives and an explanation from the top Pentagon eggheads to explain demanded. This type of thing is what the internet is for, stick this type of info in a viral Youtube doodah and you could easily hit a few million people but it would be good to get the nod from the scientific/engineering community first, if they dare.

Good effort thanks OP


posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 07:43 AM
Again, someone who thinks that there HAS to be more to the facts that what there is. Yes, alot of good stuff was presented in the first part of the OPs post, yet he then tailspins out of control. You took the facts of eye witness reports and twisted them to fit. Anyone can get their hands on the reports that show that a jet liner was in fact the plane seen, not a Navy fighter. Second, for you to say that the pictures are fake somehow or that the triage was staged is conjecture on your part. Why can't you just stay to the facts at hand? Why does everyone have to read more into than what is there? Just because someone in the triage picture isn't crying or throwing up from seeing a body mangled that makes it fake? Unless you yourself have actually done the research, as was done in the video I mentioned, all you have done is look at a picture and draw your own conclusion that anyone can debunk. Instead of telling everyone that the pictures were faked, prove it. Instead of telling us that the triage was faked, explain the deaths. How about the fact that yes, the final report by the Gov on the Pentagon attack totally contradicts eye witness testimony (would love to see your explanation of how the tower operator at the helipad SAW a jet liner, not an attack plane), yet their were DEAD people in those triages. Instead of telling about how the pix wer fakes, how about doing some investigating and help finding out the truth.

posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 07:55 AM
reply to post by BadgerJoe

Could a Dragonfire fighter Jet be the small Jet that was seen mysteriously all over the place that fateful day?, let`s look at one with the AA logo on for added realism......

I believe it was stated the AA logo was put on for added realism.

posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 07:56 AM
This is an awesome thread and you have done your homework Star and flag for you!

posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 08:02 AM
reply to post by Seventh

Thankyou. Perception is an amazing cerebral tool (if you will) that enables many individuals to see though they do not have the expertise you mentioned as a requirement to (clearly) understand what you have so laboriously revealed. My expertise is in the psycho cerebral neuro reations to external absorbed stimuli...(events in the inviroment that produce behavior responses both cerebral and periferal motion). Perception allows in many cases to intuitively understand in an abstract way the information being exposed without the need for specific details.

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in