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 and Photography.

page: 1
14
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Okay before I start, I want you all to look at this from a neutral point of view... Cast your mind back to 9/11/2001, you are near the Pentagon, it is roughly 09:30 A.M. It has been a horrible day and all of America is on red alert, it is no secret, the whole country knows what happened in New York nearly an hour ago, you then notice a huge jet acting very strangely, it has completed a 360 degree turn flying at a very low altitude, it seems you are not the only one to notice this and it is not rocket science that the terrorists day is not quite over yet, loads of sight seeing tourists are looking upwards as is the naval annexe occupants, Pentagon security, and the general public in common.

Okay with the above little story in mind, answer me this, as it is baffling the hell out of me... Why is there not one photograph or video of this very erratically behaving Jet liner?, especially on a day when two identical vehicles have been flown into the twin towers, people would have had loads of time from the plane making the 360 degree turn, there are photos from the Pentagon that involve capturing the secondary explosion just seconds after impact, the lamp post and cab driver fiasco, and just about every other angle possible, thus proving beyond a point there was an abundance of imagery capturing devices at hand, hell over at middle of nowhere Shanksville a picture was taken just seconds after the boom, and there was no warning here, no time consuming 360 degree turns to grab everyone`s attention.

Anyway`s on with the thread, but first a simple question......



Source...

aviation-safety.net...

No matter what, planes are not tanks, they are for flying and not built for stock car racing...period.

The camera never lies, but sometimes it does not tell the truth.....



Yet more `If you query this evidence you are a CT and not to be taken serious` bull crap, no matter what science breaking analogy or thesis the perps and their disciples throw at you, just let common sense prevail, the only answer here is.. Yes that plane part looks to small to be part of a Jet Liner engine, because it does not belong to a 757, plain and simple....



Remember the story at the start, and a few pictures I have used, including that just after impact explosion, right place at the right time, yet not one picture of the flying circus type 757 behaving very, very, strangely, on a day, where terrorists have flown two jets into both twins, you are, at the Pentagon.... Think.

Not.

One.

Photograph.




posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 04:39 PM
link   

posted by Seventh

Okay with the above little story in mind, answer me this, as it is baffling the hell out of me... Why is there not one photograph or video of this very erratically behaving Jet liner?



Because the FBI was going around confiscating video and camera equipment. They even confiscated US Marine photographer Jason Ingersoll's camera and film, even though he was on Department of Defense property. He ran down the hill from the Naval Annex immediately after the aircraft flew Over the Naval Annex, snapping photos.

It was returned to him later, and some of his photographs are missing from his file of photos. We know this because we have a few different copies of his photos from another source Christopher Landis, and he 'committed suicide' shortly after giving out the photos.

We do not know how many videos and photos the FBI did not return to their owners do we? They also confiscated the Arlington County 911 call-ins and transcripts for the day of 9-11 and a few days following.

Perhaps a few irritated film owners called in complaining about the corrupt FBI.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 



Indeed, over at New York there are more photos and videos than is healthy, no warning of the second plane impact, but God, it got some capture, how long would it have taken for a 757 to make that 360 degree turn?, plus the low level altitude, and on a day of terrorists and jet liners, and we are at the Pentagon, there should be hundreds of relative photos and a few videos also, oh, and the 85 CCTV videos confiscated, no rocket science explanations needed here tbh.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   
These ( no offense ) are pseudo - truther arguments. Whats next? Missile pods on Flight 175? Holograms? Laser Beams? letsroll? Wq2rx?

The picture of the jet engine is only the engine core with out the fan blades.

[edit on 22-9-2009 by CaptainAmerica2012]



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainAmerica2012
 


A part of an engine that has obviously been smashed senseless to find something in side that may fit the size that was found, yet miraculously no other parts of the engine were found, if it is the rotor that the blades fit to it is way to small....




`Based on the sizes of the person standing next to the debris and other objects in the photographs that we can use for comparison, it has been estimated that the disk is approximately 25 to 30 inches (63.5 to 76.2 cm) across. Obviously, this piece is far smaller than the maximum engine diameter of 6 feet (1.8 m) or more leading many to draw the conclusion that the item is not from a 757 engine`.


This is of course yet another twisting of make the answer fit the evidence.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Unfortunately that pic showing the size of the aircraft engine is misleading.

The 'fan' that is at the front of a 'turbo-fan' engine is much bigger than the engine itself. That hub that is 'too small' is from the compressor section and is much smaller than the fan hub.

The problem I have is where are the other 23 rotor hubs? Where are the two titanium rotor shafts? The titanium engine casings (and not the engine cowlings debunkers)?

I agree no Boeing hit the pentacon...



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Unfortunately that pic showing the size of the aircraft engine is misleading.

The 'fan' that is at the front of a 'turbo-fan' engine is much bigger than the engine itself. That hub that is 'too small' is from the compressor section and is much smaller than the fan hub.

The problem I have is where are the other 23 rotor hubs? Where are the two titanium rotor shafts? The titanium engine casings (and not the engine cowlings debunkers)?

I agree no Boeing hit the pentacon...


Misleading it may be, but who made it seem misleading?, it is like an unwritten rule that some evidence cannot be used because it.....

1).Was used on (insert random website here) and has been made a source of ridicule and scorn by the debunkers, so therefore valuable pieces of evidence are given a wide berth.

2). Was part of a thesis by a disinfo agent, again, useful pieces of evidence are sidestepped and ignored.

A huge example here is September Clues and it`s debunking, afaic there are still loads of genuine and 100% authentic topics covered, but who would dream of using them hey, a simple question:......

If the source of some of this evidence is wrong and completely manufactured, would it not do the perps and their entourage a lot more good just keeping quiet about it, and be happy in the knowledge that those opposing the OS are feeding from these sites, thus not learning anything new nor being a danger or hindrance to them?, if it is being character assassinated, debunked through Bush Science or NIST Theorycraft or both, or induces a brand new forumite to appear, and seemingly a specialist and expert in the subject (recently have John in their name), then you know you are fishing in dangerous waters, the reactions alone sometimes speak volumes about the truth in what has just been written
.

/cheers.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   
The trio of pics showing right after the explosion/firetrucks on scene with no debris whatsoever/tons of debris are enough as it is.

The size of that planted engine part could be tossed aside.

Where is the debrs immediately post crash?

Star and Flag OP



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy
The trio of pics showing right after the explosion/firetrucks on scene with no debris whatsoever/tons of debris are enough as it is.

The size of that planted engine part could be tossed aside.

Where is the debrs immediately post crash?

Star and Flag OP


Thanks, i`m glad someone noticed there are other points in this thread, but they get overlooked because someone somewhere said that engine part could have come from somewhere on a 757 jet engine, notice the lack of serial numbers or cross references of any of the alleged plane debris recovered from any of the impact zones that day?, a picture I put together for another thread, notice the engine from WTC and the very similar looking rotor, which imo looks to be part of the engine where the blades are fitted which is roughly 50% of the diameter (around 49 inches)...



And the bottom picture of how a commercial jet liner engine still looks after a crash, and by the looks of the damage done here that engine hit the ground a lot harder than the WTC engine, and it looks exactly how big it should look, and not reduced to a size that could fit into the rubbish bin it is close to.

/cheers.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


Fine, now locate a cutaway picture of the engine.

Then, if you cannot understand that the pictures you posted are of pieces INSIDE the engine, not the fan on the front of it, you are hopeless.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Thanks seventh, Gj as usual. Keep banging away- you are making
a difference my friend. the tide is slowly turning even as we speak.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 07:47 PM
link   
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999



Fine, now locate a cutaway picture of the engine.

Then, if you cannot understand that the pictures you posted are of pieces INSIDE the engine, not the fan on the front of it, you are hopeless.


Ah, the look deep inside something until the answer fits the clue, from this one day there have been one engine and one engine part found, that do not look anything like what they should do, whereas the engine embedded in the road looks exactly the way you would think it should look, also what caused the engine to shatter so bad it left only one solitary piece?.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 





Ah, the look deep inside something until the answer fits the clue, from this one day there have been one engine and one engine part found, that do not look anything like what they should do, whereas the engine embedded in the road looks exactly the way you would think it should look, also what caused the engine to shatter so bad it left only one solitary piece?.


Correction: You have only seen the one pic and believe it to be the only pic of an engine part. It isnt.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh
Misleading it may be, but who made it seem misleading?, it is like an unwritten rule that some evidence cannot be used because it.....


It's misleading because it's comparing the diameter of the front fan, blades included, with a rotor hub, without blades, that could have come from the compressor section which has much smaller rotor hubs and blades than the front fan. So it's a bogus comparison I'm afraid mate.

I just thought, as an x-jet engine mechanic, I'd point it out.

Yes the other evidence you posted about the rubble on the front lawn is true, sorry I didn't mention it, but to most of us it's nothing new. You should show the pics of the FBI running around planting the stuff, if they're still around on the net. There has been numerous threads on it.

[edit on 9/22/2009 by ANOK]



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


So where are the other pics then? Do you have them?

If you don't then how do you know there are more pics of rotor hubs?



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


I hear what you are saying ANOK, misleading works both ways bud, saying it is a part of the engine that is found deep inside is misleading to, as it could also be the part that the blades are fitted to, and where are the other parts of the engine?.

So far from 4 crashes and 8 engines we have the engine at NY, and a rotor from the Pentagon, one part of landing gear, again NY, and afaik 1 out of 4 flight recorder boxes, the three parts of a plane that normally survive no matter what....

12 sets of landing gear, 4 flight recorder boxes, and 8 engines = 24 items and 1 engine, 1 landing gear, 1 black box, 3 from 24 items, amazing once again.

/cheers.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


It will be easier to post this

www.aerospaceweb.org...



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


It will be easier to post this

www.aerospaceweb.org...



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Looking at the photographs immediatey after the crash I noticed something that didn't add up to eyewitness accounts. Steve Anderson, who claims to have seen the plane hit the pentagon,


I witnessed the jet hit the Pentagon on September 11. From my office on the 19th floor of the USA TODAY building in Arlington, Va., I have a view of Arlington Cemetery, Crystal City, the Pentagon, National Airport and the Potomac River. ... Shortly after watching the second tragedy, I heard jet engines pass our building, which, being so close to the airport is very common. But I thought the airport was closed. I figured it was a plane coming in for landing. A few moments later, as I was looking down at my desk, the plane caught my eye. It didn't register at first. I thought to myself that I couldn't believe the pilot was flying so low. Then it dawned on me what was about to happen. I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball. Then black smoke. Then white smoke.

And if you notice the lawn in the photographs.
Link

I continued to read the eye witness accounts and notice this from Gary Bauer,


Gary Bauer, a former Presidential candidate, happened to be driving into Washington, D.C. that morning, to a press conference on Capitol Hill. "I was in a massive traffic jam, hadn't moved more than a hundred yards in twenty minutes. ... I had just passed the closest place the Pentagon is to the exit on 395 . . . when all of a sudden I heard the roar of a jet engine. I looked at the woman sitting in the car next to me. She had this startled look on her face. We were all thinking the same thing. We looked out the front of our windows to try to see the plane, and it wasn't until a few seconds later that we realized the jet was coming up behind us on that major highway. And it veered to the right into the Pentagon. The blast literally rocked all of our cars. It was an incredible moment." massnews.com / Amy Contrada / December 2001




"...came from behind us and banked to the right and went into the Pentagon." Interview with Warren Smith


So which way did it bank to the left or right?



[edit on 9/23/2009 by TheAntiHero420]



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 06:25 AM
link   
[mod edit: removed unnecessary quote of entire opening post]
Quoting - Please review this link
..............................................................................




Let me get this straight - you find it hard to believe that no one took photos and therefore that is evidence of a conspiracy and the photos that were taken are evidence of a conspiracy, right?

Also -what secondary explosion? Where are you getting that from?





[edit on 23-9-2009 by 12m8keall2c]



new topics

top topics



 
14
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join