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: 4
56
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 08:24 AM
link   
You can look at the IV bag and tell. Assuming they're still setting up the line in the first picture, he looks like he's been dripping for a few minutes by the second frame. A lot can happen in 2-3 minutes with regards to what's happening in that photo. Hell, a lot can happen in 2-3 seconds in a situation like that. Plus, the board they're setting up in the first frame is under the dude receiving the drip in the second frame. It didn't go away, they just put it where it was supposed to go.

[edit on 2009/9/6 by Griever0311]




posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 08:37 AM
link   
I came to this site to get away from all the petty arguing that goes on on alot of sites...

After reading the 'rules' I thought this site would be different...

Boy was I wrong, I'd like to find a site where you have to verify your age, say 21 and older.....I guess that wouldn't help either because no matter what age a person is, the brains of most people seem to locked in a pre-pubescent state...

I better say something about the article or I guess this post will be deleted...

Thanks for the hard work you put into this...But I don't see what you are trying to get at.

PEACE and LOVE..



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 08:41 AM
link   
Is the s-3 Viking the aircraft used or is that just an example of the size being used. If that is the aircraft used, that does not make any sense. Why use a military aircraft that were was less than 200 produced instead of using a 737, of which there are over 6000 produced. Why use something that would stand out and at the time was a fairly valuable military asset.
If the plane is just being used for reference, my apologies.



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 08:49 AM
link   
Originally posted by sirdumpsalot



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.


I see you mention eye witness reports, and look at them as gospel, how concerned are you over the fact of 503 first responders expressing they heard explosions over at the WTC?, these were completely ignored, no I took the laws of physics and basic distance ratios, and impossible flight paths.




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?


And anyone can get their hands on individual witnesses stating they saw a small plane, this isn`t about eye witnesses, it`s about facts, plain and simple, and like I expressed part 4 of this thread was a mistake, I stated that, what part of it don`t you understand?.




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.


As above.



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.


Would love to see my explanation of how the tower operator at the helipad SAW a jet liner, not an attack plane?, A government employed official backs up the government by stating he saw a jet liner, you`ve got me there, all the evidence based on laws of impossibilities have just been thrown out the window, damn none lying government officials, now is this all you have here?, learn to read, understand basic maths and measurements, and come back with a bit more than `Some guy in a tower said he saw a jet liner`.

Here`s another one of my contributions to seek the truth..



See it yet?.



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by badBERTHA
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

B


Thanks very much
.



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by nocensorshipplease
This is an awesome thread and you have done your homework Star and flag for you!


Thanks, and that small jet was selected because of the huge tailfin, if you look at jprophet`s post with the jet marked in red you will see what I mean
.



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by gaslaugh123
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 knowing...ie. details.


I think I understand what you mean
, well learning is basically down to two aspects.. Theory or Practice, Theory is enough for the lesser minority, whilst Practice will in most cases iron out the creases that are very hard on paper to understand, but easily solved once there is some real time first hand experience with them
.

/cheers.



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 09:00 AM
link   
I like your tenacity, the only problem I see so far is this, on the seventh pic, the frame taken from the surviellence cam on the lawn, when you overlay the pic of a 757 over the suspected real object that hits the Pentagon, your superimposed image was a 757 taken in profile view representing it's full length. Now according to your model of the scene, the impact trajectory was approx. at an angle of 45 degrees to the direct view of the camera, this alone would make the actual length appear shorter than normal because the plane is at an angle to the viewing picture, so the length of the 757:
-Actual 757-200 length ; 156 feet
-Actual 757-300 length ; 178 feet
When viewed from the camera the actual length from nose to tail at 45 Degree angle = 110 feet and 126 feet.

I believe that size fits right into the picture perfectly, secondly, if you were standing on the lawn with your hands empty and people needed assistance, would you hold an IV bag for the trauma teams to assist, probably. Now, let's suppose that more than one person needed an IV, do you think you might hold more than one IV for the trauma team later on, sure you would.

I cannot believe how much time you folks put into this conspiracy crap, it is garbage. The massive scale of this whole 9/11 operation would prevent any such U.S. involved conspiracy, there would be too many leaks and cracks in the veil of screcy. The only plausible conspiracy theory would be that someone knew of the plot by the hijackers, but did nothing to stop it.

If you folks put as much effort into doing computer graphics and/or researching for something else this country would be a more productive place instead of the half-truths and poor scrutiny you put to your own crazy ideas.



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 09:28 AM
link   

If you folks put as much effort into doing computer graphics and/or researching for something else this country would be a more productive place instead of the half-truths and poor scrutiny you put to your own crazy ideas.

And if America put half as much effort into helath care as they did into the former "war on terror" hundreds of thousands more Americans would be alive right now, and thats if we had a 911 attack every year.

And if America put 1/10 of the effort against the war on terror into a propper investigation there would be no conspiracy theroies as the crime would be solved properly.

And for the record I put much more effort into my education than researching 911, although I cant speak for everyone. On the other hand, anyone that spent say 12 unbiased hours looking through both government and media information relating to 911 they would see that although no conspiracy is proven, the government story is inaccurate an incomplete.



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Seventh, I'm sorry man but you lost me back when you called an S-3 a Dragonfire. It's a Viking and we in the NAV called it the Hoover. It's not an aircraft designed to fly nap of the earth, period.

The rest of your post is just more angles and trajectories...stuff folks have been trotting out since this happened.

It's like listening to a stoned person who just got religion...I understand the words they are saying, but how they string them together makes no sense.

fail

Do I think the govt. was complicit in some way...YEP!!!, but I tend to believe it was a crime of omission not commission.



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by deadbang
 


The omissions say much more than any theory of gov't "commission" could ever say. NORAD's failure, alone, should have caused heads to roll up and down the chain of command.

Otherwise, there is no "there" there.

Any thread that starts off by explaining how "articulate" the author considers him/herself to be fails from the outset.

We don't need to hear the author repeat how brilliant his reconstruction is. We can judge that for itself.

Star for you.

jw



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 


Blimey,

Call yourselves conspiracy theorists! LOOK at the photos.

Not singling anyone out, or having a go, but how can people be so blind to what is right in front of their eyes?!

OK...The man marked as 'C', is the SAME man in both photos.

Anyone who has vision can see that.

The 'holster' as some people have said, is CLEARLY the guy's tie.

As mentioned the guys trouser braces are CLEARLY visible is both images, in fact, both the inverted V shaped part that attaches to his trousers, and ALSO the silver horizontal adjusting clasp half way up his chest is CLEARLY visible.

Here are blow ups to clear any doubt..



And the second...



Can anyone really suggest (sidetrack?) that this are not two images of the same guy?

OK then...can we get back to the actual facts, and forget the bickering about nonsense and deviating from the topic please?

I thank you.


[edit on 6/9/2009 by spikey]



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Originally posted by ARNETT 187


If you folks put as much effort into doing computer graphics and/or researching for something else this country would be a more productive place instead of the half-truths and poor scrutiny you put to your own crazy ideas.


If you guys put as much effort into some good solid research as you do plain insults, your overall calculations would not be so horribly out, firstly to help get a measurement somewhere needed for the 47.2 metres length of a 757-200 I split the 35m, so 28m + 17.5 = 45.5m with a slight overlay......



I was working on something else and the other lines here just ignore, but anyway here it is...



So we have just over 2.5 in length 757`s, and somewhere around 5 lengths of mystery jet.

Hope this was simplified enough for you
.



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Any post that attacks an OP's perceived conceit or lack thereof, is missing the point of the thread, and can be in turn perceived as diversionary.



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 11:31 AM
link   

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


Accuracy is the very soul of credibility. Right now you have neither.



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   
If you had started this off as "your theory" of what happen and not the gospel, then you would have empresed alot of people. Instead you twisted facts to fit your theory and when it has been debunk over and over you want us to disregard any of the facts for your mis-information. What small plane are you telling us was seen? By whom? Do you have proof? Transcripts, eye-witness accounts? Anything? To say that the size of the plane that you referenced was immaterial is a joke. You basicaly are saying that your "facts" are the obvious facts that we should not ignore, yet eyewitness reports that have been coroberated numerous times, with signed affidavits are a load of crap? How about the C-130 pilot who testified that the jet liner was on the north headed east and on the south part of the Pentagon when they nearly hit it? Or the men who were fishing on the river and saw the jet fly from the east over the river, which according to the final report could never have happen due to the fact that they have it staying on the west side of the river and going over it? I would stake my life on the eye witness report from the security gaurd in the tower at the helipad before I would use anything you have presented. The fact that as soon as what you have posted has been debunked and you can't except it you want to argue with us over it proves that this was your personal theory and was not based off of facts. I've been in this work for nearly 30 yrs and so far I have found nothing in your presentation to support what you are trying to make us believe.



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by jdub297
 


Any post that attacks an OP's perceived conceit or lack thereof, is missing the point of the thread, and can be in turn perceived as diversionary.




Maybe you should pay attention to the what he named the post in the first place. This was a theory that was being passed off as "facts". As for an attack, when you post in a forum you are open for attacks, especially when you have tried to force people to see your perspective that they have debunk numerous times since the thread was begun. Again, if he said this was his own theory and not facts that he has proof of, then it would be different. As of now he has no facts nor cares for the facts.



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by sirdumpsalot
 


Right. And its not like the grown up thing to do is read the post and make your own judgement based on the evidence presented. The grown up thing to do is discredit every single perseon who ever made an error or misjudgement permenantly, and to ridcule them. It would make God cry if someone thought for themselves.



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh
Would love to see my explanation of how the tower operator at the helipad SAW a jet liner, not an attack plane?, A government employed official backs up the government by stating he saw a jet liner, you`ve got me there, all the evidence based on laws of impossibilities have just been thrown out the window, damn none lying government officials, now is this all you have here?, learn to read, understand basic maths and measurements, and come back with a bit more than `Some guy in a tower said he saw a jet liner`.

Here`s another one of my contributions to seek the truth..



See it yet?.


Seeing as you have not presented anything except what YOU have uncovered, I would love to see where your facts are coming from. Anything? Again your proving the fact that you have presented alot of stuff that everyone has so far debunk. And your acting like your the only to figure something out. Have you even been to the area? Or have you gotten most of the facts from sites like this? And have you ever worked construction or demolition? When tons of material starts to collapse in on it's self you get smaller "implosions/ explosions" below it. It's scientific fact. Oh wait, science is connected to the government, so yeah your right, we can't believe science either. Again, where are you getting YOUR facts from? I doubt it's commen since.



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by sirdumpsalot
 


Right. And its not like the grown up thing to do is read the post and make your own judgement based on the evidence presented. The grown up thing to do is discredit every single perseon who ever made an error or misjudgement permenantly, and to ridcule them. It would make God cry if someone thought for themselves.


Wow, yeah, ya got me there. Pay attention to whats posted. AGAIN, just for you, if the OP had said it was his theory and not the gospel then it would have been different. Yet when faced with people able to debunk his claims and the fact that he has no proof to support any of his findings, the OP wants to argue with them over it instead of working on it even more. As for your previous post, none of us have said that the Gov did not have anything to do with this, nor is their report accurate. And I will ridicule anyone who wants to pass off a theory as pure fact anytime.

[edit on 6-9-2009 by sirdumpsalot]



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join