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: 2
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh
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?.


It is too small to be the front fan hub of ANY turbo-fan engine. High-bypass Turbofan engines are massive, they are used to created lift for heavy planes, as apposed to high speed like a regular turbojet.

There is no way that hub is a fan hub, but it is possible it is a compressor hub. But that doesn't mean it came from flight 77.




posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   

posted by ANOK

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.



No sign of evidence tags? Planting, moving, or collecting evidence? No sign of a notebook recording where the piece was originally located for crash analysis?



Zoomed view





Evidence from a building in Italy?



Italian pic doesn't look like the design around Pentagon doors and on walls does it?



larger view

Another view



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   

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



there are photos from the Pentagon that involve capturing the secondary explosion just seconds after impact,


This secondary explosion which actually happened about 15 minutes after the initial explosions, and was taken by Daryl Donley.

Notice that Donley took the photo directly in line with the alleged official flight path (pole 4 laying there) and that the explosion is almost directly in line with the 16 foot alleged entry hole and the undamaged cable spools, or possibly inside the building with the fireball exiting outside. The generator is burning to the right and the roof has not been demolitioned yet.




posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston

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



there are photos from the Pentagon that involve capturing the secondary explosion just seconds after impact,


This secondary explosion which actually happened about 15 minutes after the initial explosions, and was taken by Daryl Donley.

Notice that Donley took the photo directly in line with the alleged official flight path (pole 4 laying there) and that the explosion is almost directly in line with the 16 foot alleged entry hole and the undamaged cable spools, or possibly inside the building with the fireball exiting outside. The generator is burning to the right and the roof has not been demolitioned yet.





According to Donely he took the photo about 3 or 4 minutes (not 15) after he witnessed the plane crash into the building. He was in line with actual flight path because that was where he was when the plane went overhead.



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

According to Donely he took the photo about 3 or 4 minutes (not 15) after he witnessed the plane crash into the building. He was in line with actual flight path because that was where he was when the plane went overhead.


Actually other eyewitnesses including as I remember a General and a US Congressman and two MSM reporters placed the explosion about 15 minutes after the initial explosions at 9:37 AM. As I recall, Donley 'revised' his earliest time estimate in much the same way that Jamie McIntyre 'revised' his earliest report of no evidence of an aircraft on the lawn. Much like the 'revisions' of Mike Walters and several other alleged witnesses. Perhaps the 'revisions' were 'requested' by the ever faithful FBI.

Teri Morin up at the Naval Annex and several others including Sean Boger were also visited by the FBI and given 'requests'.

"I could see the windows. I saw the entire plane and then saw it fly right into the Pentagon." Daryl Donley

Amazing how he could see the fuselage windows in less than a second (official speed 780 fps) if the alleged aircraft was coming straight at him and if he was directly below it. And if the aircraft wings were about 36 feet off the ground clipping off the poles, then the huge turbofan engines would have been a few feet above his head. And assuming Donley was northbound in his car, how could he have simultaneously seen the windows out his driver side window, and the aircraft impacting the wall out his passenger side window in less than a second? Another suspicious planted witness? Did Donley have a media connection?

Daryl Donley

And how come Donley didn't see and hear #3 light pole broken off which should have been right next to his car? And why didn't his car roll over from the ground effect of an alleged 90 ton aircraft at 530 mph just above him?

Why don't you GLs ever actually think out these obvious anomalies?


[edit on 9/23/09 by SPreston]



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Again, we can all split hairs and argue pointlessly about this random engine piece.

Who cares.

There is a picture of a firetruck at the Pentagon. There is no debris on the lawn.



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy
reply to post by hooper
 


Again, we can all split hairs and argue pointlessly about this random engine piece.

Who cares.

There is a picture of a firetruck at the Pentagon. There is no debris on the lawn.


First, there was some debris on the lawn and secondly why would there be a great deal of debris AHEAD of the point of impact? Just look at some car crash photos - do you see car pieces spread out AHEAD of the point of impact?



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by SPreston

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



there are photos from the Pentagon that involve capturing the secondary explosion just seconds after impact,


This secondary explosion which actually happened about 15 minutes after the initial explosions, and was taken by Daryl Donley.

Notice that Donley took the photo directly in line with the alleged official flight path (pole 4 laying there) and that the explosion is almost directly in line with the 16 foot alleged entry hole and the undamaged cable spools, or possibly inside the building with the fireball exiting outside. The generator is burning to the right and the roof has not been demolitioned yet.





According to Donely he took the photo about 3 or 4 minutes (not 15) after he witnessed the plane crash into the building. He was in line with actual flight path because that was where he was when the plane went overhead.


There is no debris in this picture, and your source says it was taken 3-4 minutes after the initial impact.

There is debris in pictures of this same location taken chronologically after this one.

Therefore, we can ascertain with 100% certainty that the source of the debris was not the object that initially impacted the pentagon.



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston

Originally posted by hooper

According to Donely he took the photo about 3 or 4 minutes (not 15) after he witnessed the plane crash into the building. He was in line with actual flight path because that was where he was when the plane went overhead.


Actually other eyewitnesses including as I remember a General and a US Congressman and two MSM reporters placed the explosion about 15 minutes after the initial explosions at 9:37 AM. As I recall, Donley 'revised' his earliest time estimate in much the same way that Jamie McIntyre 'revised' his earliest report of no evidence of an aircraft on the lawn. Much like the 'revisions' of Mike Walters and several other alleged witnesses. Perhaps the 'revisions' were 'requested' by the ever faithful FBI.

Teri Morin up at the Naval Annex and several others including Sean Boger were also visited by the FBI and given 'requests'.

"I could see the windows. I saw the entire plane and then saw it fly right into the Pentagon." Daryl Donley

Amazing how he could see the fuselage windows in less than a second (official speed 780 fps) if the alleged aircraft was coming straight at him and if he was directly below it. And if the aircraft wings were about 36 feet off the ground clipping off the poles, then the huge turbofan engines would have been a few feet above his head. And assuming Donley was northbound in his car, how could he have simultaneously seen the windows out his driver side window, and the aircraft impacting the wall out his passenger side window in less than a second? Another suspicious planted witness? Did Donley have a media connection?

Daryl Donley

And how come Donley didn't see and hear #3 light pole broken off which should have been right next to his car? And why didn't his car roll over from the ground effect of an alleged 90 ton aircraft at 530 mph just above him?

Why don't you GLs ever actually think out these obvious anomalies?


[edit on 9/23/09 by SPreston]


What anamolies? All you have is a fistful of "ifs". You for some reason don't believe that when a plane flies by you, even at a high rate of speed, that you can't see the windows. Then you throw in the car should of rolled over, yet no other cars on the road turned over. Sorry, you're making stuff up and then wondering how people could be stupid as not to see the anamolies that you do.



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Am I to infer from these posts that simply because *you*...the collective *you*...the Truther You...are not privy to and have not seen *every single photograph* taken on that day, official or otherwise, or afterward at the Pentagon, that is reason enough to claim they do not exist?

Thinking that you have seen everything is absurd. I assure you, contrary to what goes on in Truther Heads, you are of insufficient importance for anyone of any note (or anyone not of any note, for that matter) to give a flying hoot about what you want to see or what you think you are entitled to see.

You need to get these illusions of self-importance and grandeur out of your heads. The way you people suck up to each other is, while nauseous to everyone else in the world, fine and dandy when you want toe suck up to each other, but don't expect anyone outside your club to suck up to you.



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by trebor451
 


You sure seem like an angry person. Whats your problem?

What's sad is that you take time to interact with these same people who you criticize with each post you make here. Nothing better to do big fella??

Hooper, this isnt a car crash. Quit spinning the top.

Where is the debris in the picture with the firetruck? Can you explain that one?



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy
reply to post by hooper
 


Again, we can all split hairs and argue pointlessly about this random engine piece.

Who cares.

There is a picture of a firetruck at the Pentagon. There is no debris on the lawn.


First, there was some debris on the lawn and secondly why would there be a great deal of debris AHEAD of the point of impact? Just look at some car crash photos - do you see car pieces spread out AHEAD of the point of impact?



I believe they are referring to the lack of debris from the five hundred some mph collision with five light poles.

It's interesting you would make the comparison that you do. B/c I think you would agree that if a automobile struck say even one light pole going lets say 65mph that there would indeed be a trail of debris. A even more dense debris trail would be achieved in a automobile going 300mph, (we won't even fantasize a 500 some mph light pole impact) like in a drag race, this is very evident in numerous videos.

Yet, we have a 757, impacting five light poles and not leaving a single piece of debris from the collision in its trail to the building. Definitely not something you would expect to see.

On topic.

Like the OP, I also find the seemingly lack of video or photographic evidence in the public record telling. Like another has already mentioned though, that doesn't mean that this type of evidence doesn't exist.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Stillresearchn911
 


Why would there be any debris from the plane because it struck a break away light pole? Do you really think that a pole designed to give way would cause that much damage? That is the whole idea of having those types of light poles in the safe area approaches to runways - so they don't damage the plane if they are struck.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy
reply to post by trebor451
 


You sure seem like an angry person. Whats your problem?

What's sad is that you take time to interact with these same people who you criticize with each post you make here. Nothing better to do big fella??

Hooper, this isnt a car crash. Quit spinning the top.

Where is the debris in the picture with the firetruck? Can you explain that one?


I know it is not a car crash. I am fully aware of that. Again - why would there be a string of debris LEADING to the point of impact?



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Originally posted by hooper



Why would there be any debris from the plane because it struck a break away light pole? Do you really think that a pole designed to give way would cause that much damage? That is the whole idea of having those types of light poles in the safe area approaches to runways - so they don't damage the plane if they are struck.


Way to debunk yourself, the lamp posts hit at the Pentagon were street lights, the one this plane hit were runway lights, it ripped the wing off.......

aviation-safety.net...

So what you are saying is the ones at runways are designed not to damage a planes wings, when obviously street lights are not, but they did not anyway.

Also in response to your earlier comment re:- Do I assess the whole no photographs thing as a basis for an inside Job?, I take it you have not read any of my 40+ plus threads relating to 9/11, apart from the no photos fiasco there was a vast imagery capturing device confiscation by the F.B.I. (unlike the WTC) , this was put down to needed as evidence, cast your mind back to the 5 frames released which was evidence (apparently) at the Moussaoui trial, ask yourself how evidence which showed a date stamp of 9/12/2001 could be used as admissible evidence in court with blatantly obvious signs of editing?.

A short reply to those stating that the plane parts were from a 757 engine, where is the relevant reference from Rolls Royce that these were indeed parts of one of their Jet Engines?, this should not be to hard should it, proving what they say is correct by showing the exact same parts from a correspondence by Rolls Royce.

Not having anywhere near enough debris from a 100 ton vehicle to clearly prove beyond doubt that a 757 hit the Pentagon is yet another aviation miracle, as any of the news guys or several first hand eye witness stated `There is no evidence here whatsoever that a Jet hit this place`....



Despite the appearances of exterior photographs, the Boeing 757-200 did not "only damage the outside of the Pentagon." It caused damage to all five rings (not just the outermost one) after penetrating a reinforced, 24-inch-thick outer wall. As 60 Minutes II reported in its "Miracle of the Pentagon" episode on 28 November 2001, the section of the Pentagon into which the hijacked airliner was flown had just been reinforced during a renovation project.


So we have first responders reporting no visible signs of a commercial Jet Liner hitting the Pentagon, and damage to all 5 rings that were constructed to withstand a nuclear attack, Boeing`s are definitely the new WMD, here we have them bringing down steel towers constructed as the engineer openly states `They could withstand a fleet of Jets hitting them`, one managed to penetrate 5 rings of reinforced concrete/brickwork constructed to withstand missile attacks but not fibre glass and nose cones, and over near Shanksville we have one that buried itself, absolutely amazing.


See the light yet?.

I will state again.... If those plane parts are indeed what they are supposed to be it should not be to hard to prove, should it.!!!!!!



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh
Originally posted by hooper



Why would there be any debris from the plane because it struck a break away light pole? Do you really think that a pole designed to give way would cause that much damage? That is the whole idea of having those types of light poles in the safe area approaches to runways - so they don't damage the plane if they are struck.


Way to debunk yourself, the lamp posts hit at the Pentagon were street lights, the one this plane hit were runway lights, it ripped the wing off.......

aviation-safety.net...

So what you are saying is the ones at runways are designed not to damage a planes wings, when obviously street lights are not, but they did not anyway.

Also in response to your earlier comment re:- Do I assess the whole no photographs thing as a basis for an inside Job?, I take it you have not read any of my 40+ plus threads relating to 9/11, apart from the no photos fiasco there was a vast imagery capturing device confiscation by the F.B.I. (unlike the WTC) , this was put down to needed as evidence, cast your mind back to the 5 frames released which was evidence (apparently) at the Moussaoui trial, ask yourself how evidence which showed a date stamp of 9/12/2001 could be used as admissible evidence in court with blatantly obvious signs of editing?.

A short reply to those stating that the plane parts were from a 757 engine, where is the relevant reference from Rolls Royce that these were indeed parts of one of their Jet Engines?, this should not be to hard should it, proving what they say is correct by showing the exact same parts from a correspondence by Rolls Royce.

Not having anywhere near enough debris from a 100 ton vehicle to clearly prove beyond doubt that a 757 hit the Pentagon is yet another aviation miracle, as any of the news guys or several first hand eye witness stated `There is no evidence here whatsoever that a Jet hit this place`....



Despite the appearances of exterior photographs, the Boeing 757-200 did not "only damage the outside of the Pentagon." It caused damage to all five rings (not just the outermost one) after penetrating a reinforced, 24-inch-thick outer wall. As 60 Minutes II reported in its "Miracle of the Pentagon" episode on 28 November 2001, the section of the Pentagon into which the hijacked airliner was flown had just been reinforced during a renovation project.


So we have first responders reporting no visible signs of a commercial Jet Liner hitting the Pentagon, and damage to all 5 rings that were constructed to withstand a nuclear attack, Boeing`s are definitely the new WMD, here we have them bringing down steel towers constructed as the engineer openly states `They could withstand a fleet of Jets hitting them`, one managed to penetrate 5 rings of reinforced concrete/brickwork constructed to withstand missile attacks but not fibre glass and nose cones, and over near Shanksville we have one that buried itself, absolutely amazing.


See the light yet?.

I will state again.... If those plane parts are indeed what they are supposed to be it should not be to hard to prove, should it.!!!!!!


Do a little research with regard to airport and runway design. Contact a local design engineering consultant. There are safe areas around runway approaches that are required to have breakaway lights. Not just on the runways themselves. Sorry.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Originally posted by hooper



Do a little research with regard to airport and runway design. Contact a local design engineering consultant. There are safe areas around runway approaches that are required to have breakaway lights. Not just on the runways themselves. Sorry.


So you are saying they would place runway type safety lights in a restricted flight zone, where under normal circumstances any plane encroaching would be duly dealt with via missiles?.

I see.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


And poles which are lower than the height of the building...in which the
aircraft would never normally encounter?


Gave you a star for the heads-up logic Seventh.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh
Originally posted by hooper



Do a little research with regard to airport and runway design. Contact a local design engineering consultant. There are safe areas around runway approaches that are required to have breakaway lights. Not just on the runways themselves. Sorry.


So you are saying they would place runway type safety lights in a restricted flight zone, where under normal circumstances any plane encroaching would be duly dealt with via missiles?.

I see.


Your missile fantasy aside, yes. Designers declare safe zones around runway approaches. These safe zones must have breakaway appliances, the simple idea is that should an errant flight of any size strike the objects the strike would not normally cause the plane to loose total control. Really a simple idea, next time you are near an airport of any size take a look.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


Difficult to prove - no not at all - to me. But impossible to prove to you. If tommorow morning the airlines released all the numbers that you have requested (I assume, of course, you have made multilple requests to the airlines for this information) would you believe them? It would only be pieces of paper after all, easy enough to forge, right? So to what end would it serve?



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join