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: 3
14
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Hooper, I can't promise anything, but at my squadron we have photos of wings that were cracked nearly in half from BIRDS.

Yes, Birds.

In fact, the birds are STILL imbedded in the wings of the planes in these picures. If it's possible, I will try to get some posted here but I need to make sure I'm not screwing up...they are on NIPR so I SHOULD be okay.

In any case, if birds can crack/damage a wing, what in God's name are light poles going to do??

Granted, the wings which are in said picture are from a C2 (at least I think they are), but again, I'd have to verify that. Not that I imagine the type of plane matters at the speed this plane was supposedly going, but I guess you need to account for all the details.




posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Originally posted by hooper



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?


Prove what exactly?, that wings of an aircraft will break when they hit a light post, I did, have a look at Drummerboys post above also.

There are those that believe the evidence they are told, and those that actually look at it, and when we put forward a great point it gets an outrageous counter argument assessment, air squibs are probably the most inventive yet, what ever way you look at it, wings are not designed to take a beating unless a liberal lashing of Bush Science is applied.

Absolutely nothing the government said that happened that day has been proved beyond a doubt, plain and simple.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 07:08 PM
link   

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.


What does airport and runway design have to do with the Pentagon? Those light poles were along roadways. They would be designed to breakoff for auto impacts; not airplanes.

Airplanes did not land at the Pentagon helipad; not even on the miracle day of 9-11-2001. Only helicopters tookoff and landed at the helipad. I don't think helicopters would survive crashing into light poles whether they broke off or not. So the light poles would be designed solely for auto impacts; not autos and helicopters don't you think?

So why didn't the five 337 pound aluminum light poles break off the wings or pieces of the wings of the alleged 530 mph 757 and spread aircraft debris all over the lawn?



In this early photo with the roof not yet demolished, there is no wing debris on the lawn is there?



And how did the pole pieces manage to fall next to their bases after being allegedly struck by 530 mph airplane wings?




posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston

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.


What does airport and runway design have to do with the Pentagon? Those light poles were along roadways. They would be designed to breakoff for auto impacts; not airplanes.

Airplanes did not land at the Pentagon helipad; not even on the miracle day of 9-11-2001. Only helicopters tookoff and landed at the helipad. I don't think helicopters would survive crashing into light poles whether they broke off or not. So the light poles would be designed solely for auto impacts; not autos and helicopters don't you think?

So why didn't the five 337 pound aluminum light poles break off the wings or pieces of the wings of the alleged 530 mph 757 and spread aircraft debris all over the lawn?



In this early photo with the roof not yet demolished, there is no wing debris on the lawn is there?



And how did the pole pieces manage to fall next to their bases after being allegedly struck by 530 mph airplane wings?





Again, do a little research. It is a design concept. The idea is simple, appliances above a certain elevation and within a certain distance of a airport runway are spec'd so as to allow them to be struck by ERRANT planes (planes off course) so that the damage is transfer to a weak point, usually the base of the appliances. This way you are not compounding an already bad situation (plane off course) with damage to the plane that may severly impact the planes ability to make corrections. These areas are not at all limited to the airport and runways proper, and are not universally applicable. They are customized to each situation.

I am sure you have all heard about height limitations for buildings on airport approaches. Same idea.

In the end however, you conspiracies are all based on the narrow fact that all the evidence is limited to what you can find on the internet. So even if small pieces of the wings were found on the lawn of the Pentagon, you consider that a moot point as you can't find anything about that on the internet.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy
reply to post by hooper
 


Hooper, I can't promise anything, but at my squadron we have photos of wings that were cracked nearly in half from BIRDS.

Yes, Birds.

In fact, the birds are STILL imbedded in the wings of the planes in these picures. If it's possible, I will try to get some posted here but I need to make sure I'm not screwing up...they are on NIPR so I SHOULD be okay.

In any case, if birds can crack/damage a wing, what in God's name are light poles going to do??

Granted, the wings which are in said picture are from a C2 (at least I think they are), but again, I'd have to verify that. Not that I imagine the type of plane matters at the speed this plane was supposedly going, but I guess you need to account for all the details.


I am telling you what I know from our designers. I don't know that you can reasonably make the bird in flight/wing and the light pole/wing analogy. There is a lot going on there in terms of physical reaction. Besides, all your conjecture is limited to what photos you can find on the internet. Not on what really happened. There may have been more plane pieces on the lawn. In fact, I believe in the Library of Congress audio files about 9/11 there is an oral history from a military person describing people picking things off the lawn and worrying about secondary attacks.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Yeah I understand what you're saying. However, these pictures are not from the internet I assure you.

Secondly, I understand the analogy is essentially apples to oranges, but regardless, it doesn't change the physics. A 200-300 pound light pole, regardless if it's designed to break away if impacted, is still going to provide significantly more resistance (and damage) than a bird.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy
reply to post by hooper
 


Yeah I understand what you're saying. However, these pictures are not from the internet I assure you.

Secondly, I understand the analogy is essentially apples to oranges, but regardless, it doesn't change the physics. A 200-300 pound light pole, regardless if it's designed to break away if impacted, is still going to provide significantly more resistance (and damage) than a bird.


Sorry, I was not referring to your personal photos of the bird damage. I was referring to the proposition that the wings of AA77 did not suffer ANY damage based solely on what photos of the 9/11 Pentagon site are found on the internet. Just because nobody took a highly detailed photo of every inch of that lawn does not mean there was nothing on it. What I have taken exception to is the notion that there should be large sections of the plane strewn about the Pentagon lawn ahead of the point of impact.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   

In the end however, you conspiracies are all based on the narrow fact that all the evidence is limited to what you can find on the internet.


Which is all it takes to prove my case.

reply to post by jprophet420
 




[edit on 25-9-2009 by jprophet420]



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

In the end however, you conspiracies are all based on the narrow fact that all the evidence is limited to what you can find on the internet.


Which is all it takes to prove my case.

reply to post by jprophet420
 




[edit on 25-9-2009 by jprophet420]


What case? You looked at one photo on the internet and unilaterally declared "conspiracy" because you don't THINK the photo show enough debris. That really isn't a case - it is more of an opinion.



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 03:05 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Hooper I have to call BS on this one, I believe your flat out assuming that those particular light poles were break away poles. You have no clue if they were or weren't.

Also, your assumption about the fact that they were break a way poles has no bearing on the evidence at hand. Based off of photos of the evidence the poles were all chopped in half at the point they were hit at, they never broke away, they were obliterated into multiple pieces with specific "chops" at the point of impact.

Besides you know darn well that even break a way poles are not designed to be struck by aircraft at 500 some mph. More likely top end landing speeds.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 06:42 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


its not an opinion actually. I'm comparing the debris in this picture to debris in later pictures. The debris that is in this picture is unquestionably the debris caused by the crash. Any other debris is not from the crash. There are many other pictures of the same crash site with debris that is not in this picture. The only possible explanation is that this debris was not part of the crash. If you have an explanation, we would all love to hear it.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh
Why is there not one photograph or video of this very erratically behaving Jet liner?


I asked that very same question to the debunkers in another thread, not once but 4 TIMES!! I got one response along the lines of "It is a mistake in reasoning. One does not need video or photo evidence to prove a plane crashed into the Pentagon".

That's it. One ridiculous claim that it's a 'mistake in reasoning'. I would have thought that VISUAL EVIDENCE of a plane slamming into the Pentagon would have been high priority on the debunkers list but NO, apparently we shouldn't be asking about the fact that the MILITARY CENTRE OF AMERICA has only 1 camera and 5 frames of footage covering the entire Pentagon event - the bloody security camera's at my local SUPERMARKET would do a better job of capturing this event.

It's as simple as this, whatever footage there is of the Pentagon incident has been hidden and classified because IT DOES NOT SHOW A PLANE SLAMMING INTO THE PENTAGON. Period.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stillresearchn911
reply to post by hooper
 


Hooper I have to call BS on this one, I believe your flat out assuming that those particular light poles were break away poles. You have no clue if they were or weren't.

Also, your assumption about the fact that they were break a way poles has no bearing on the evidence at hand. Based off of photos of the evidence the poles were all chopped in half at the point they were hit at, they never broke away, they were obliterated into multiple pieces with specific "chops" at the point of impact.

Besides you know darn well that even break a way poles are not designed to be struck by aircraft at 500 some mph. More likely top end landing speeds.



Please don't call it BS. I was stating an opinion based on my knowledge of airport design. I thought I was clear that it was an opinion, if I had some sort of clear reference I would have mentioned it. That is why I specifically directed that additional research may be required. In this day and age, however, I don't think it is going to be very easy, if not impossible to get the design criteria for this airport.

As to the point of break on the poles - I thought one of the conspiracy arguments was that the poles all broke off cleanly at the base - so much so that it looked like they were cut by torches. Now the proposition is that the poles were destroyed thus arguing that there should be a plethora of airplane debris about the lawn on the approach to the Pentagon.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties

Originally posted by Seventh
Why is there not one photograph or video of this very erratically behaving Jet liner?


I asked that very same question to the debunkers in another thread, not once but 4 TIMES!! I got one response along the lines of "It is a mistake in reasoning. One does not need video or photo evidence to prove a plane crashed into the Pentagon".

That's it. One ridiculous claim that it's a 'mistake in reasoning'. I would have thought that VISUAL EVIDENCE of a plane slamming into the Pentagon would have been high priority on the debunkers list but NO, apparently we shouldn't be asking about the fact that the MILITARY CENTRE OF AMERICA has only 1 camera and 5 frames of footage covering the entire Pentagon event - the bloody security camera's at my local SUPERMARKET would do a better job of capturing this event.

It's as simple as this, whatever footage there is of the Pentagon incident has been hidden and classified because IT DOES NOT SHOW A PLANE SLAMMING INTO THE PENTAGON. Period.


This is a piece of "logic" that I never understood. Why would the Pentagon have video surveillance with recordation of the lawn in front of the Pentagon? To what end? The camera that did capture the incident was obviously recording vehicles entering the parking lot.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Ummm, probably for the same reason supermarkets have security camera's? To see if people are doing right thing and no criminal activity is taking place?

Seriously, to claim that the Pentagon has no security camera's covering it's entrances and surrounds - particularly when it is THE MILITARY CENTRE OF AMERICA is clueless, ignorant and ridiculous indeed.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by hooper
 


Ummm, probably for the same reason supermarkets have security camera's? To see if people are doing right thing and no criminal activity is taking place?

Seriously, to claim that the Pentagon has no security camera's covering it's entrances and surrounds - particularly when it is THE MILITARY CENTRE OF AMERICA is clueless, ignorant and ridiculous indeed.


The Pentagon has something that most supermarkets do not - a literal Army to protect and defend it. Should the need arise. So you think - and this is your logic - that the Pentagon, the administrative headquarters for the Department of Defense - has the same security system in place as you local supermarket. That is a booth where some hourly security gaurds sit and watch video screens? Really? That is how you think the Pentagon is protected? And you have somebody sitting there watching a video screen of the lawn? Please think these things all the way through.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


And where was this "Literal Army" when a plane slammed into the Pentagon? Why was the plane not detected and shot down miles before it got near the Military Centre of America? I think that the need very much arose on that day, and yet no Army. Hmmmm.

It is not I that needs to think things through mate, it is you


[edit on 28/9/2009 by Kryties]



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


Star for you.


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.



I'm amazed that there were eyewitnesses in the Pentagon (that's a Military building so the ability of someone inside to recognize the smell isn't a stretch) swore that the smelled cordite. Do Commercial flights carry cordite? Do they stockpile it in the pentagon?
How would one smell cordite after a plane crash?



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Perhaps the engines were smashed to tiny pieces by the impact on those there windows. The windows that are intact, but at about the spacing of the engines. The windows that likely would have been smashed from impact of a 757 engine/wing. Unless the wings folded neatly back along the fuselage...
I still see nothing on the lawn.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Badgered1
reply to post by Seventh
 


Star for you.


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.


Ah, the missile fantasy. That's always a good one. Like the Pentagon is some lonely frontier outpost in sci-fi movie. With batteries of missiles waiting to shoot down the attacking aliens. The Pentagon is located next to one of the busiest airports in the US, not to mention Air Force One and Marine One flying around all the time.


I'm amazed that there were eyewitnesses in the Pentagon (that's a Military building so the ability of someone inside to recognize the smell isn't a stretch) swore that the smelled cordite. Do Commercial flights carry cordite? Do they stockpile it in the pentagon?
How would one smell cordite after a plane crash?




top topics



 
14
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join